Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MEMBER SWORN

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:

James Harold McCusker, esquire, Armagh.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Devolution

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals Her Majesty's Government propose to put to the projected all-party talks on Scottish devolution.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): The Government have indicated that they will propose the repeal of the Scotland Act. The appropriate order is already before the House and a debate will be arranged. At that stage we will indicate how we intend to proceed thereafter.

Mr. Knox: Since the issue of devolution will not go away, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the proposals he puts forward for all-party consideration will be constructive?

Mr. Younger: We shall certainly approach the talks, when we come to them, constructively, and in that sense I accept what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Grimond: When the Secretary of State examines this matter further, will he bear in mind that the Act contained a section which would have set up a commission to examine the administration of Orkney and Shetland? Is he aware that we would like that proposal set in motion again when the appropriate time comes?

Mr. Younger: I am well aware of that point. It is an issue that could be raised in the all-party talks.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Since the Act received a majority in the referendum, and since the Secretary of State's party secured a smaller percentage of the vote in the election than it secured in the referendum, does he not consider that it would be an act of political wisdom if he were to retain the Act until he has a substitute which he considers to be an improvement?

Mr. Younger: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. An analysis of the referendum results shows that a large majority of people in Scotland did not feel that they could vote for the Act. That cannot be ignored.

Mr. Ancram: While the all-party talks are continuing will my right hon. Friend consider setting up a Select Committee to sit in Edinburgh to study the workings of the Scottish Office?

Mr. Younger: As my hon. Friend knows, that proposal has been made from various quarters, and it is something that would be relevant for consideration in the all-party talks.

Mr. Dalyell: What exactly is there to talk about?

Mr. Younger: The object of the all-party talks will be to establish what the various parties in the House would wish to talk about on this subject, and to see whether there is some basis for a consensus about what should be done next.

Mr. Henderson: Will my right hon. Friend and his colleagues recognise that if any proposals are to be effective there will have to be changes of attitude about the management of business in this House? In particular, will he consider the place of broadcasting and television in any proposals?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said, but much of its content is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and I shall draw his attention to it.

Mr. Millan: Will the Secretary of State recognise that these talks will be more likely to be meaningful if they are held


before he attempts to repeal the Scotland Act? Since the views of all the other parties in the House about devolution are known, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that he cannot dodge giving the Government's view, which is what we want as soon as possible?

Mr. Younger: As I have said, the one thing which came out of the referendum was that the Scotland Act did not command anything remotely approaching majority support in Scotland, and I think that we should be quite wrong not to recognise that. As regards our approach, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the object of the talks, of course, is to let all concerned make their views known, and it is quite possible that some of the parties in this matter may well have views different from those which they held a year ago.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I allowed longer on that question than will be possible on other questions.

North Ayrshire District General Hospital

Mr. Lambie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is prepared to hold a public inquiry into the delay in completing the new North Ayrshire district general hospital; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Russell Fairgrieve): The Ayrshire and Arran health board—rightly in my view—is giving absolute priority to having certain technical defects identified and rectified with a view to bringing this important new district general hospital into service as soon as possible. A public inquiry at this stage would not be helpful and might only give rise to further delay.

Mr. Lambie: I am disappointed, and my constituents in Central Ayrshire will be disappointed, by that reply. Is the Minister aware that, five years ago, the health board drew the attention of the Common Services Agency to the high lead content of the water supply, and the agency at that time took away sample pipe joints for analysis but so far the health board has had no reply from the CSA? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that the original design team

appointed by the CSA has to all intents and purposes been sacked from any further work and a new design team has been appointed? Is it not about time that officials of the CSA responsible for hospital building in Scotland should be sacked, so that then we could wake things up?

Mr. Fairgrieve: The hon. Gentleman has asked two or three slightly different questions. The building division of the CSA—which, by the way, is part of the NHS, not of my Department—has been involved in this scheme only since NHS reorganisation in 1974. In any event, it has in this case a liaison advisory role, not an executive function. Officers of the building division have been working hard with those of the health board in an attempt to have the problem resolved, and my Department knows all about the problems of the split in the design team.

Mr. David Steel: Without anticipating a later question of mine about the Borders general hospital, which my constituent, the Under-Secretary of State, knows all about, may I ask whether the Government's announcement about the review of the Health Service organisation in England and Wales will apply also to Scotland in view of the considerable delays being experienced in the construction of these new hospitals?

Mr. Fairgrieve: Although it is a different problem, I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the review of the National Health Service is, of course, a United Kingdom matter, and I am fully conversant with the problems of the new hospital in our—or his—constituency.

Mr. Corrie: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if hospitals were built to a standardised plan throughout the country, a great deal of time and money could be saved, in contrast to what happens with the one-off architectural monstrosities going up now, which are extremely difficult to build and to work efficiently in?

Mr. Fairgrieve: I think that one of the reasons for the delay in the Borders hospital is an initial attempt to go to a standardised plan. I do not think that that is possible.

Council Houses (Sales)

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice


has been given to housing authorities, the Scottish Special Housing Association and new town development corporations to offer all their houses for sale to sitting tenants; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): A circular has been issued to local authorities giving general consent to the sale of council houses to sitting tenants and urging authorities to adopt a policy of offering houses for sale. I shall make a copy of the circular available to the hon. Gentleman. The new policy will apply also to the Scottish Special Housing Association, and discussions are being held to decide how it is to be implemented. New town development corporations have for many years had discretion to sell their houses. They are being asked to bring the terms on which they do so into line with those which we have authorised for local authorities.

Mr. Brown: First, may I offer the hon. Gentleman my personal congratulations on his appointment? He will need all the help he can get, even from me. Would it not have been wiser to consult local authorities and COSLA before embarking on this policy of confrontation? Where will the additional public expenditure be found for loans to people, and does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that there is no freedom of choice for the more than 40 per cent. of council tenants who are at present in receipt of rent rebate?

Mr. Rifkind: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations, albeit in their qualified form. He suggests that there has been no consultation with the local authorities. He seems to forget that at this stage the circular is simply discretionary. We are removing the restraints which were imposed by the Labour Government, and I do not recall that there were any consultations with the local authorities when the restraints were first imposed.
The hon. Gentleman asked about cost. The whole purpose behind the Government's policy, quite apart from the new rights which it will give to council tenants, is to enable certain costs to be saved. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that loan charges form a substantial part of the housing account, and in addition maintenance and other costs of that kind amount to some two-thirds of the rent

received by local authorities. Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman is concerned about costs, he should be supporting our policy.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me tell hon. Members who are new to the House that we normally have short questions and answers.

Mr. Sproat: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the bargains for council house tenants will not be found just in the so-called better estates? Is it not a fact that the scheme to put a market value on these council houses will mean that, with the discount, many council house tenants could find themselves in possession of a good solid piece of real estate for as little as £1,000?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is certainly the Governmen's intention that local authorities shall consider all houses in their area available for sale to tenants who wish to purchase. We believe that the fact that a house in an area which might be considered to be of low amenity will have a market value substantially less than that of other properties will mean that there is no council tenant who could not seriously consider purchasing his own home.

Rate Support Grant

Mr. Adams: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to increase the rate support grant to Scottish local authorities to improve the availability of places in eventide homes in the Paisley area, where there is a substantial waiting list at present.

Mr. Fairgrieve: None, Sir. Rate support grant is paid in aid of local authority revenues generally, and it is for authorities to determine expenditure priorities between services.

Mr. Adams: Will the Minister be more specific? Is he aware that the number of people over retirement age is likely to increase by about 10 per cent. to 15 per cent in the next decade? Is he suggesting that no additional resources are needed to meet this demand? Is he saying that what is required is simply a redistribution of what is already there? If he is, will he tell us quite specifically what local government services should get less, in the Government's view, so that geriatric care may be maintained?

Mr. Fairgrieve: I can only repeat that it is the privilege of my right hon. Friend to decide the level of rate support grant, and thereafter it is the duty of the local authorities to decide how it is divided up and spent.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister state the effect which the Chancellor's announcement yesterday about a reduction in rate support grant to local authorities will have on the social work services, especially for the old and the mentally handicapped?

Mr. Fairgrieve: That entirely depends on how the local authority decides to divide up the rate support grant.

Mr. McElhone: The Minister has not yet answered the question. What does he tell an elderly disabled person in need of local authority care who lives in a Tory-controlled area which will suffer massive rate support grant cuts? Does he tell that person to suffer in the name of Tory tax cuts? Is that the Tory freedom we have been hearing about?

Mr. Fairgrieve: I did answer the question, and I point out to the hon. Gentleman that if a local authority decides to spend the whole of its rate support grant on the social services, that is its privilege.

Glasgow (Eastern Area Renewal)

Mr. David Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of Glasgow eastern area renewal; and what proposals he has for the future of this project.

Mr. Rifkind: Draft overall proposals for GEAR have been prepared by the Scottish Development Agency and are intended to provide a framework for action over the period to 1982 and beyond. They will be considered at the next meeting of the project governing committee. I have visited the area and had introductory discussions with the Scottish Development Agency; but obviously further discussions will be necessary before I can reach a view on how to secure the success of the project.

Mr. Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the project, which has attracted so much favourable attention and brought hope to an area badly in need of it, will not be affected by cuts in public spending?

Mr. Rifkind: I made clear when I visited the GEAR project on Friday that the Government believe in the project and wish to see it succeed. The representations we have received about GEAR relate not to financial resources but to the slowness of decision-making. It is in that area that we are trying to ascertain whether progress may be achieved.

Dr. M. S. Miller: May we congratulate the Under-Secretary of State on his second visit to Glasgow?

Mr. Rifkind: I think that I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my visits to Glasgow are probably substantially greater in number than his visits to Edinburgh.

North Sea Oil

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement of progress in relation to the planning application from Shell and Esso for development at Moss Morran and Braefoot Bay.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to announce his decision on the Moss Morran petrochemical project in Fife.

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has completed his consideration of the observations received on the Health and Safety Executive report on the Moss Morran petrochemical project in the Kirkcaldy constituency; and when he expects to announce his decision on the planning application.

Mr. Younger: I am considering all the material before me which is relevant to the planning applications for this development, including the representations received on the most recent material from the Health and Safety Executive, but I cannot at this stage say when a decision will be made.

Mr. Douglas: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. Is he aware that I do not wish to press him into a decision? I understand that he will have to have some time to consider these complex and difficult matters. Assuming that his decision will be positive, as all the local authorities in Fife desire and as I desire, will he consider especially the


terms and conditions of the hazard analyses that he will lay down and try to make them much more specific? So that there may be clarification, does he agree that an analysis should take place, if possible, prior to the construction of the project?

Mr. Younger: I note with interest what the hon. Gentleman says, but, as he will appreciate, I cannot anticipate my decision.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I want to press him now for a decision? These matters have been going on long enough. Is he aware that if his decision is not favourable to the minority of objectors in the area, they will take all steps to thwart the desire of the three Labour-controlled local authorities that desperately want the projects to go ahead because of the urgency of providing additional employment facilities in the area? It is desperately important that a decision is made as quickly as possible.

Mr. Younger: I know the hon. Gentleman's views. I reaffirm that it is my duty to consider all the evidence presented to me and to come to a conclusion when I have done so. Neither my predecessor nor myself would wish to do otherwise than give it the fullest consideration.

Mr. Gourlay: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is a travesty of justice that a few objectors, led by a professional objector in Fife, are holding up the project? Is he aware that the local authorities in Fife are frustrated by the delay, which goes back to January 1977? There is need for an urgent decision. Will he grasp the nettle like a man and make a decision forthwith? I ask him not to delay any longer. I appreciate that he has only recently taken office, but I am sure that the papers are available and that everything is ready for a decision to be made.

Mr. Younger: I shall not be responsible for any unnecessary delay. It is, however, my statutory duty to ensure that I consider carefully all the relevant evidence, and I must do that before coming to a decision.

Mr. McQuarrie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the delay in granting the application is causing considerable

disruption to the plans of Shell-Esso, at the St. Fergus works, in my constituency, and that a decision is of considerable urgency?

Mr. Younger: I am well aware of that. I do not think that it can be said that there has been unreasonable delay. My predecessor had further evidence to consider. He was in the course of receiving that evidence when there was a change of Government. I have to consider all the evidence and to ensure that I take into account all of it that is relevant.

Mr. Ernest Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, if ICI decides to proceed with the petrochemical complex at Barry Buddon, the Ministry of Defence will not put any barrier in its way? Is he aware that there is grave concern in the area that if ICI decides to come to Barry Buddon the Ministry of Defence will decide to upgrade the site for use by NATO forces, which will be opposed seriously by those living in the area?

Mr. Younger: I note with interest what the hon. Gentleman says. As he will appreciate, as such a project might come before me for some form of decision, I had better not make any comment upon it now.

Torness Nuclear Power Station

Mr. Ancram: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to review the proposed construction of a nuclear power station at Torness.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): No, Sir. The South of Scotland Electricity Board was given the necessary planning and expenditure consents to go ahead with construction of the power station at Torness by the previous Administration, and preliminary site work is already committed and under way. The board will, of course, require to obtain a nuclear site licence from the nuclear installations inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive.

Mr. Ancram: Is my hon. Friend aware of the growing concern not only in that area but in Edinburgh about the safety aspect especially as it was never publicly examined at the time of the inquiry?


Does he agree that it is the Government's duty to assure the people that the project is safe rather than the duty of the people to prove to the Government that it is not?

Mr. Fletcher: The health and safety aspects were considered at the public inquiry. Evidence was given both by objectors and nuclear inspectors. The public can and do make representations to the Health and Safety Executive. Both the executive and the Health and Safety Commission regularly publish reports of their proceedings.

Mr. David Steel: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there will be great disappointment that the Government have not taken the opportunity to review the decision, given that it was made and based on a very old public planning inquiry rather than one related to the needs of the industry? Will he note that there is widespread and growing concern among both the population and the local authorities in the South of Scotland?

Mr. Fletcher: There is also growing concern among the public about supplies of energy generally, including oil, about which a statement is to be made later this afternoon. As the right hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie) indicated in the House on 4 December 1978, the public inquiry held in June 1974 was broad in scope and considered not only matters of local planning significance but the wider issues involved. I see no reason to dispute the conclusion reached by the previous Administration.

Mr. Home Robertson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Torness is in the constituency of Berwick and East Lothian, where the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) was last heard of in October 1974? As the Minister must be aware that there is considerable public disquiet about the safety of nuclear power within my constituency, what does he intend to do to allay those fears? Will he use his influence with the Leader of the House to have an early debate on the subject in the Chamber?

Mr. Fletcher: The last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is a matter for other occupants of the Treasury Bench. He may have the opportunity to raise it on the Adjournment motion later today. He spoke of public concern about safety factors. He will know that the

inspectors issue a series of licences as the work progresses. They do so only if they are entirely satisfied with the progress.

Mr. Corrie: Does my hon. Friend agree that there has never been a death from a nuclear accident in Britain? Does he agree that if we do not have a rapidly-improving nuclear power industry we shall run very short in the coming winter?

Mr. Fletcher: Yes.

Electricity Supply (Colonsay)

Mr. John MacKay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he plans to alter the present legislation to make the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board responsible for providing electricity to the Island of Colonsay.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: No, Sir. The present legislation has stood the test of time, and the board's policies under it have, in my view, fairly balanced the interest of its general body of consumers and that of potential customers in the remoter areas.
Coming new to the Colonsay problem, however, I have asked that a further examination should be made, in consultation with the hydro-electric board and the Highlands and Islands Development Board, of the scope for some reduction in the cost of electricity to the islanders.

Mr. MacKay: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I urge him to expedite the matter, as my constituents on Colon-say pay 14p a unit for electricity and will probably pay 17p a unit by the end of the summer. Will he please get a move on so that they are able to see a future for their electricity supply?

Mr. Fletcher: I shall ask both of the boards concerned to act as quickly as possible.

Mr. Grimond: I welcome the Minister's indication that he will ask the Highlands and Islands Development Board to intervene. However, is he aware that there is an exactly parallel situation in North Ronaldsay, and that the two islands have been in consultation with each other and with the Highlands and Islands Development Board? What is needed apart from co-ordination is for the Government to lay their hands on some funds to make it possible to generate electricity locally.

Mr. Fletcher: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that both of the boards involved do their best in these remote areas. I am sure that he is also aware that there is not exactly a legacy of a great deal of available funds for the Government to use for these or any other purposes.

Mr. Dewar: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the island of Colonsay is owned by Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, one of his ministerial colleagues? Will he consider whether it is possible to galvanise or electrify the noble Lord into some entrepreneurial activity in the interests of his long-suffering tenants? Will he conduct conversations with the noble Lord on this subject and report progress to the House?

Mr. Fletcher: I am happy to say that my noble Friend in previous years made a significant contribution to the electricity supplies in the islands.

Angling (Tweed and Eye)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to receive the report of the public inquiry into the Tweed and Eye orders on angling; and if he will make a statement on his proposed time-table for action.

Mr. Younger: The public inquiry to which my predecessor referred these proposals will be held on Monday 25 June at Kelso, and I would expect to receive the report within three months or so thereafter. In the meantime, it would not be appropriate for me to make any comment.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the Minister appreciate that the current legislation on angling is not exactly standing the test of time?

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman and I have a joint interest in this matter. There have been some attempts over the years to change the law on angling. This is how the law stands at present. We must see how it works.

Mr. John MacKay: Does my right hon. Friend agree that angling clubs throughout the country need protection from the army of worm fishermen who descend on waters at weekends and holidays and do great damage to the fish stocks, which

other anglers wish to fish by fair, fly methods?

Mr. Younger: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. Access to fisheries is inseparable from their proper management. The Act seeks to do that. I hope that it will be successful in improving matters.

Mr. David Steel: Although the Minister cannot forecast the outcome of the inquiry, will he give an assurance that he will handle the matter speedily? Angling clubs in the border areas are irritated at the delays. Will the Minister give more weight to the views of those angling clubs which have contributed to the management of the rivers in the Tweed basin than to those of the angling clubs which have contributed nothing except organising bus raiding parties from West Lothian, Stirlingshire and other places?

Mr. Younger: I am sure that the reporter will take those facts into account at the inquiry. I shall not allow any undue delay in making a decision in due course.

Mr. Canavan: When he makes a decision, will the Secretary of State try not to be too influenced by the fact that the applicants for the protection order include some of the biggest Tory landowners in Scotland such as Lord Home, the former Tory Prime Minister, the Duke of Buccleuch, the former Tory Member of Parliament for Edinburgh, North, and the family of the present hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram)?

Mr. Younger: In these matters, I treat all applicants, whatever their background, on exactly equal terms.

Teachers (Pay)

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement about the teachers' salaries claim.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: A further meeting of the Scottish Teachers Salaries Committee has been arranged for 25 May, and I hope that progress will be made then towards a satisfactory conclusion of the negotiations.

Mr. Canavan: So as to reach a speedy settlement, will the Government accept in principle that the teachers need 42½ per cent. to restore their salaries to what they


were at the time of the Houghton report? Is it true that when this and other vital education matters were debated last week, in the first major debate on education in this Parliament, the new Minister with responsibility for education in Scotland played truant so as to go to the cup final at Hampden Park?

Mr. Fletcher: I do not think that the latter remark has anything to do with the question. I have various responsibilities at the Scottish Office, including sport, which I think are important. The negotiating committee will meet on Friday. It would be inappropriate for me to forecast the discussions that will take place there.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the cost of the settlement will be included in the rate support grant settlement to the local authorities?

Mr. Fletcher: The cost of the settlement will be included in the rate support grant. It will also be included in the Government's revisions of public expenditure generally, where amendments are necessary.

Perth-Aberdeen Dual Carriageway

Mr. Peter Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the proposed new Perth to Aberdeen dual carriageway.

Mr. Rifkind: I have instructed my Department to report on the best means of implementing this commitment. Proposals at Stonehaven which involved new lengths of single carriageway have been withdrawn for redesigning.

Mr. Fraser: Will my hon. Friend give an undertaking that identified and accepted improvements to the roads in Angus, especially the proposed bypass for Forfar will not be prejudiced by the design planning work that will be necessary on the new dual carriageway? Will he reconsider the detrunking decision of the coast A92 road which the previous Administration took?

Mr. Rifkind: The road improvements now being carried out will be upgraded to dual carriageway standard. The Forfar bypass is not due to begin until 1982. It will be included in the new design at dual standard level. The public local

inquiry recommended against double trunking in this area. We do not intend to change that. Four of the bridges on this road will be given help by the Department although the road is no longer a trunk road.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister say what the cost to public funds would be of dualling this road and whence the money will come? As the Government are dedicated to making public expenditure cuts, who will suffer to pay for these roads?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should be only too delighted at the Government's commitment to make this road a dual carriageway. The cost of the improvement to dual carriageway standard will be £27 million.

Mr. Sproat: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in spite of the carping comments of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), the Government's determination to go ahead with this vital development will be widely welcomed in Scotland? Will he give us an approximate idea of when construction will begin and how long it will take?

Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The need to redesign the road to dual carriageway standard means a delay of six months in starting the construction work. We hope that all construction work will have begun in 1983.

Scottish TUC

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet representatives of the Scottish Trades Union Congress.

Mr. Younger: I met representatives of the General Council of the Scottish Trades Union Congress on 21 May.

Mr. Strang: Does the Secretary of State accept that the Scottish economy is especially vulnerable to cuts in public expenditure and public investment and that the policies announced in recent days by the Government threaten thousands of jobs in these? Will he at least give an assurance that some attempt will be made to moderate the impact of these policies in Scotland?

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that the Scottish


economy is exceptionally vulnerable to industries having to contract or go out of business when long-term policies act against their interests. He should have been worried about that when the previous Government presided over the doubling of unemployment.

Mr. Allan Stewart: In his talks with the Scottish TUC, will my right hon. Friend emphasise the need for giving greater publicity to the fact that industrial relations in Scotland are a great deal better than they are often painted?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that remark, which indeed is true. I have always been at pains to emphasise to those who might be considering setting up business in Scotland that the majority of Scottish businesses have extremely good labour relations records.

Mr. James Hamilton: Does the Minister recognise that during the period of the Labour Government there was a tremendous amount of carping criticism from the then Conservative Opposition? Does he recognise that for three months there has been a decrease in Scottish unemployment? Will he give an assurance that there will be further decreases during the Government's period of office, bearing in mind the redundancies now taking place?

Mr. Younger: I wish that I could expect the unemployment levels in Scotland to go down. There has been a welcome reduction this month. Unfortunately, even that reduction has not yet wiped out the serious increases in January and February of this year. We must tackle that problem now. But quick results cannot be produced from the situation.

Mr. McQuarrie: When my right hon. Friend meets the STUC, will he impress upon it that the Government will not tolerate the blackmail tactics laid out this weekend by NUPE, that we intend to ensure that the promises we made to the electorate as to what we would do in the life of this Parliament will be fulfilled, and that we shall do without being instructed by the unions by blackmailing tactics and threats?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have the responsibility of

being the Government. We intend to carry out our programme in that way.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: Will the Minister take this opportunity to clarify the situation on the dispersal of Civil Service jobs to Scotland, Wales and the English regions? Confusion arose in the election campaign when the right hon. Gentleman's supporters and friends in London were saying one thing whereas his predecessor as leader of the Conservative Party in Scotland was saying another. May we have a specific assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) still stands?

Mr. Younger: No changes have been made in the position left to us by the previous Government, and our stand on this matter has been well understood for some time.

Employment

Mr. Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on employment prospects in Scotland.

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he intends to take to deal with unemployment in Scotland.

Mr. Younger: When I arrived in the Scottish Office I found unemployent levels which were almost exactly double what they were when I left the office in 1973. It is my prime task to try to recreate confidence within Scottish industry so that it can once more start to expand and create more employment.

Mr. Ewing: Will the Secretary of State publish in the Official Report his precise estimate of the number of jobs that will be lost in the Civil Service in Scotland through the 3 per cent. reduction that has been imposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Will he publish in the Official Report the number of jobs that will be lost in local authorities in Scotland through the reduction in the rate support grant, also bearing in mind the indication earlier that the Government would expect jobs to go, as a result of the sale of council houses, in the housing departments?
Finally, will the Secretary of State comment on the remarks of Mr. Alan Devereaux, chairman of the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland, yesterday, that during the coming winter Scotland will be in for a blizzard? Will he bear in mind that that comment was made against the background of Mr. Devereaux being in favour of the election of a Tory Government?

Mr. Younger: I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman seems to have no sense of shame for the inheritance he handed over to this Government. I can assure him that all the policies we pursue are designed to encourage Scottish industry once more to expand, and not to have the disastrous loss of jobs which has occurred over the last five years.

Mr. Eadie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the decision by the Government not to intervene to save the jobs of Pye/TMC in Livingston new town is a deplorable decision, bearing in mind the concern that he has synthetically expressed to the House in his previous answer? Is he further aware that the Government have at this early stage already given the impression that skill and diligence by a work force will get no response from them? What does he intend to do about unemployment?

Mr. Younger: One would not have thought that the hon. Gentleman had been a distinguished member of a Government who left office only 18 days ago. If his criticism of me is that I have not solved all these problems in 18 days, I accept it. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State saw those concerned with the first matter mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, and they went very carefully into the background to this very unfortunate position. The sad fact is that there did not appear to be a viable or profitable future for that part of the business, but we would have been very glad to help if any way could have been found of doing so.

Mr. Sproat: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there is very deep concern in the North-East of Scotland about the 600 jobs being made redundant at Lawson's of Dyce, with the loss of the pig-slaughtering facilities there? Will he say what discussions his Department has already had, and what he is proposing to

do to try to alleviate this disastrous situation?

Mr. Younger: I share absolutely my hon. Friend's concern. My noble Friend the Minister of State will be meeting those concerned tomorrow to see whether there is any way in which he can help.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Republic of Ireland seems to be taking up the lion's share of the mobile manufacturing jobs available at the present time, including the recent Mostek development, which went to Dublin? Has he any plans to alter the guidelines of the Scottish Development Agency to allow it to attract some of these jobs to Scotland?

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman will have to ask my predecessors to explain the full details of what occurred in the Mostek case. I am sure that they could explain. We shall be looking at the guidelines of the Scottish Development Agency to see whether there is any way in which its performance can be improved. It will have every support from us in carrying on its work under the statutes.

European Community

Mr. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements he has made to ensure that the particular interests of Scottish fishermen and farmers will be fully represented in negotiations with the European Economic Community.

Mr. McQuarrie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to ensure the adequate representation of the views of the Scottish agricultural and fishing industries on the renegotiation of the common agricultural policy and common fisheries policy.

Mr. Younger: I am meeting representatives of these industries to hear their views on both issues. Scottish Ministers and officials are taking a full part in the formulation of United Kingdom policy on agriculture and fisheries, and will attend meetings at all levels in the Community—including the Council of Ministers—whenever necessary.

Mr. Henderson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm the Government's commitment to the pledges made in our election manifesto? Will he confirm that there is indeed urgency in these matters—as the


question a moment ago about Dyce underlined—in the context of the devaluation of the green pound in order to permit our farmers to compete on level terms? Will he also recognise the need for urgency to ensure conservation of our fish stocks?

Mr. Younger: I confirm that we intend to proceed as fast as we can to implement the undertakings that we have given to both industries. We shall keep in close consultation with them in doing so.

Mr. McQuarrie: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his replies, but as we in the Conservative Party have a commitment to the fishing industry, I should like to have his assurance that the fishing industry and agriculture will be fully consulted before any final negotiations are entered with the EEC. The people in those industries had a fear, while the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) held the post of Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, that he went to the EEC with his tongue in his cheek—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Question Time is for asking questions and not for advancing a point of view. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) must ask a question.

Mr. McQuarrie: Will my right hon. Friend assure us that before these decisions are taken full consultations will be completed with the fishing industry and with agriculture?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I have already met informally the president of the Scottish National Farmers' Union, and I and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will tomorrow be meeting representatives of the British fishing industry in order to have consultations with them.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the manifesto on which the Conservative Party fought the election made no mention whatever of fishing? Is he further aware that we draw small comfort from the fact that his hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) is now Minister of State at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, since he was party to the sell-out of the fishing industry when we joined the Common Market?

Mr. Younger: I certainly do not accept the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. If he can spare the time this evening, he might care to read the Conservative manifesto, in which he will find that there is a mention of fishing.

Mr. Sproat: Will my right hon. Friend accept that, very welcome as are the extra conservation measures announced last week, the fishing industry requires more? Will he give urgent consideration to introducing, first, a one-net rule and, secondly, to extending the pout box?

Mr. Younger: These are matters that we have in mind to discuss with our colleagues, and we shall take the advice of the fishing industry on those very points.

Mr. Jay: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the house that he will defend the interests of Scottish fishermen and farmers in Brussels with no less determination than the previous Government showed?

Mr. Younger: Yes, I can give that assurance.

Scottish Development Agency

Mr. Buchan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to meet the chairman of the Scottish Development Agency.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: My right hon. Friend has already met the chairman informally, and both he and I shall be having further discussions with the chairman and chief executive shortly.

Mr. Buchan: When the Secretary of State met the chairman of the SDA, did he assure him of the Government's abiding desire to maintain the public enterprise aspects of the agency, or did he revert to the Conservatives' previous vomit during the discussions on the Bill, which one of them regarded as a bit of a Marxist nightmare? Would not an opportunity be given to the Secretary of State to get himself off a personal hook, in relation to Monsanto, if he called in the Scottish Development Agency to help him and the people of Scotland on that question?

Mr. Fletcher: I said that the meeting was informal. When we have formal meetings with the chairman and the chief executive, we shall make it clear to them,


if there is any doubt, that we intend to retain the SDA as such.
My right hon. Friend and I had meetings with the chief executive of Monsanto, and we pressed him to say whether there was any way in which Government help could be given to maintain the factory in Ayrshire if the company wished to keep it as a viable proposition. No proposition was put forward by the company, and therefore the Government were unable to help.

Mr. Henderson: Will my hon. Friend, when he meets the chairman of the SDA, invite the agency to consider more sensitively requests for help for very small projects rather than for the expenditure of very substantial sums of money?

Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend will know that in the SDA there is a small business section which is supposed to be doing that. Certainly, in our consultations with the chairman and the chief executive, we shall ask questions about that.

Mr. Millan: Now that the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to look at the actual activities of the SDA, and the Government's pledge to give new guidelines seems to be whittled down to saying that the SDA will no longer be able to invest for political rather than commercial purposes, can he give one or two examples of such investments over the past two or three years which would have been caught by these new guidelines and which will not be allowed?

Mr. Fletcher: That is a very hypothetical question. The new guidelines for the SDA are still under consideration. As my hon. Friend said, our object is to make the SDA even more efficient—if I can put it that way—in the very difficult task it carries out in Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions — COURTS

Mr. Canavan: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland whether he is satisfied with the operation of the Scottish courts.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn): The industrial action by clerks of court has greatly disrupted the operation of the Scottish courts and

caused worry and inconvenience to innocent members of the public. It will be a considerable time before business in the courts returns to normal. Until then, I cannot say that I am satisfied with their operation.

Mr. Canavan: I congratulate the hon and learned Gentleman on his new job He might even have been Lord Advocate if he had been a bit more moderate and law-abiding, like myself.
In the interests of better industrial relations in the courts, will the Solicitor. General please refrain from bashing the trade unions for simply trying to get a fairer deal for low-paid court workers, especially when the hon. and learned Gentleman recalls the fat fees which he and many of his rich advocate friends receive for their court appearances through membership of that well-known closed shop, the legal profession?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The hon. Gentleman demonstrates his utter confusion and ignorance, as usual. He is much more liable to be a model for prosecution than any I would imitate in any other way.

Mr. Canavan: Withdraw!

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The courts in Scotland, as elsewhere, depend upon the great good will and trust of those who work in them. I trust there will never again be a strike, because those who work in the courts have grave duties to those whom they serve as well as duties to themselves and their families.

Mr. Dewar: The Solicitor-General has raised the matter of industrial relations in the courts. Does he still adhere to the views that he expressed as a Back Bencher, on 20 March, on Second Reading of the Administration of Justice (Emergency Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, when he compared the sheriffs clerk to highway robbers and referred to them as a mob who torture, wound and destroy their fellow citizens? If the hon. and learned Gentleman still holds to those views, does he think that they are a great contribution to better industrial relations in the courts? If he is worried about a future strike, does he intend to introduce legislation to outlaw strikes in the courts by the staff of the sheriffs clerk, as he very eloquently and vehemently argued in that debate?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The hon. Gentleman is obviously able to read some of Hansard. If he is going to quote it, he should do so accurately. Let us be absolutely clear about this. Everybody in society has a duty to his neighbour. It is an important duty which cannot be abdicated because one is a member of a trade union.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what delays in summary and solemn prosecutions are envisaged as a result of the recent industrial dispute affecting the courts.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I hope that the High Court will have disposed of its backlog of work by the middle of July. Delays of no more than about three months over and above the norm will, therefore, have occurred. In solemn work in the sheriff courts it will be much longer before the workload is reduced to normal and delays of four or even five months might be expected in the busiest courts. The position is similar in sheriff summary courts where at worst there may be delays of up to six months and at best no delays at all. The district courts will continue to operate normally, as they have done throughout the strike.

Mr. Wilson: In view of the horrendous delay which the Solicitor-General for Scotland has just mentioned, is it his intention to introduce special temporary sheriffs and additional courts to try to catch up on the backlog? Does he propose to defer the provisions which would have been in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill to limit prosecution on indictment after the expiry of one year after the offence has become known?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: On the last matter, we shall have to await the new Criminal Justice Bill. The provision of court services is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. There will be certain additional courts, but it is difficult to obtain extra sheriffs, fiscals, staff and clerks. Everything will be done to reduce the backlog quickly without prejudicing those who are presently awaiting trial.

Mr. Buchan: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that hardship exists mainly where family problems are involved,

such as divorce actions? Surely it should be possible to have some fast method of clearing undefended divorce cases? For example, could not the sheriff do a bit of overtime?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am sure that a large number of people who are involved in the law are willing to work as hard as they can to resolve this situation, but we began, after all, with 10 weeks' unopened mail. That greatly affects the consistorial cases of which the hon. Member speaks. In the area of which the hon. Gentleman speaks, great hardship has been caused, and those who are responsible would wish, I am sure, to undo the harm and hardship they have already caused.

Oral Answers to Questions — R. W. McCONNACHIE v. DANKARTS WOODWORKING MACHINERY

Mr. Cryer: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he will make a statement on his consultations on the operation of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act with the Health and Safety Commission, following the case of R. W. McConnachie v. Dankarts Woodworking Machinery.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I have had no consultations with the Health and Safety Commission yet. I have studied the case of R. W. McConnachie v. Dankarts Woodworking Machinery, and I am satisfied that the law as it stands is likely to ensure as best as it can the safety and health of people at work and members of the public.

Mr. Cryer: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that his predecessor understood that the law might need strengthening? Is it not a matter of concern to him, and to the Conservative Government, that it appears from the case that the position regarding imported machinery is significantly lower and is entirely outside the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, and may be outside the absolute provisions in section 14 of the Factories Act 1961? Why should this country tolerate lower standards for imported machinery than for our own machinery? In this respect, why can we not adhere to the standards of other EEC countries, which would not tolerate these lower standards?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The hon. Member misunderstands the law. He will know that section 6 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 provides that
any person who designs, manufactures, imports or supplies any article for use at work
—has a duty—
to carry out or arrange for the carrying out of such testing and examination as may be necessary for the performance of the duty imposed …
by subsection (1), which is to ensure, so far as possible, that the article is designed and constructed to be safe and without risk to health. In this case, the fact that the machine was imported is irrelevant. It cannot be made safe unless one is first able, without prosecution, to test it to make sure that it is safe.

Mr. Peter Fraser: Will my hon. and learned Friend be taking any steps to ensure that in future prosecutions under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 are considered by the Crown Office before the procurator fiscal takes any steps at local level?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Dalyell: Are not extremely important precedents and issues involved? Did the Solicitor-General, by the use of the phrase "as best as it can" in his main answer, indicate that the Government are far from happy about the situation?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman is not accurate in taking that phrase out of my words. In my opinion, the law as it is drafted is most likely to ensure that the new machinery is safe after testing. I see no necessity for any change in the law. The law will never be perfect, but, as best as it can, it now ensures health and safety at work.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROCURATORS FISCAL

Mr. George Robertson: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland, in the last two available years, how many reports from the police, concerning those for

which prosecutions were possible, were subject to no action by procurators fiscal.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The total number of reports by the police to procurators fiscal of crimes or offences in respect of which no proceedings are taken is not recorded. The total number of all reports submitted to procurators fiscal from all agencies is recorded, as is the total number of these reports in respect of which no proceedings are taken. These figures for 1977 and 1978 were given to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) on 26 March 1979. Procurators fiscal receive reports from the police on matters in respect of which the question of criminal proceedings never arises.

Mr. Robertson: In the absence of these statistics, does the Solicitor-General recognise that there can be some public concern that reports by the police, given in good faith, are perhaps due to inexplicable decisions by procurators fiscal to take no action, and that in certain areas of public concern that might be something which his Department could look into?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The discretion of procurators fiscal to mark cases to have no proceedings is an important part of the protection of the citizen in Scotland. It may be due to insufficient evidence or to triviality or malice on the part of the complainer. It is very important that, at that point of sifting, the procurators fiscal, with the assistance of the Crown Office, should have the right to exercise their professional judgment.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Since the Solicitor-General has paid a high tribute to procurators fiscal, will he tell the House why he has now decided that prosecutions under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act will now be made only by the Crown Office.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I did not say that I had decided that prosecutions under the Act would be made under the Crown Office. What I did say was that all such matters will, I trust, be reported to the Crown Office so that Crown counsel can take a decision on whether the prosecution should proceed.

OIL SUPPLIES

Mr. David Steel: (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Energy, in view of the severe cuts in oil supplies, what urgent steps will be taken to prevent the threatened disruption of essential services within the next few days, and to ensure that reductions in consumption are evenly and fairly spread over the country as a whole.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Howell): I am very concerned about the local difficulties that are arising in certain areas, and my Department is in close touch with these problems and with the suppliers. The oil industry is taking steps to iron out local difficulties as quickly as possible by making fair allocations to its consumers. I must, however, warn the right hon. Gentleman and the House that we are facing a tight world situation that will not go away. Cheap energy is a thing of the past, and we will have to plan our lives and work accordingly. The adjustment cannot be painless, nor can we in the United Kingdom be insulated from it. The Government will play their full part in helping the nation adapt to the new constraints, both in the short term and the long term.

Mr. Steel: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the overall shortfall in supplies to the country as a whole is of the order of 2 per cent.? If that is so, or if there is some other figure, does he accept that it is his Department's responsibility to try to ensure that that shortfall is borne equitably as far as possible throughout the country? Is he aware that in the South of Scotland the shortfall in diesel oil supplies is as high as 20 per cent. or 25 per cent., and that the latest news this morning is that petrol is no longer being supplied to garages, except those owned by the oil companies? This is having a severe effect on agriculture, school transport, heating in old people's homes, and so on.
In the last few days I have been in touch with both the suppliers and the oil companies, and my impression is that they are waiting for the right hon. Gentleman's Department to give clear guidelines and take action to try to ensure that the supplies are more equitably shared.

Mr. Howell: My Department is talking with the suppliers, and they have seen my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I also recognise the particular problem of agriculture as a result of the late spring sowing after the heavy winter. I recognise those problems, and we are discussing them with the suppliers. The overall shortfall figure is not as big as the right hon. Gentleman said. It is not 2 per cent. The figure that I have is 1 per cent., or less. In fact, it is expected to be only fractionally less than the amount that we consumed in the corresponding period last year. That, of course, is no comfort to certain people in particular situations, but that is the overall figure against a world output shortfall in supplies of about 4 per cent. Against that background, our position is not so unfavourable. That is the broad position.

Mr. Foot: In view of the seriousness of the situation, will the right hon. Gentleman take into account that we would like to have regular reports to the House on the subject? I ask that specially in view of the fact that this subject was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech.

Mr. Howell: I shall do my best in that regard. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has noted the right hon. Gentleman's request.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: In view of the facts given to the House by my right hon. Friend, can he make a statement on Government policy regarding the export of North Sea oil?

Mr. Howell: North Sea crude is exported. As under the previous Government, the encouragement to suppliers is to export it to our EEC partners and to our partners in the International Energy Agency. Since we have to import certain oils of a kind that are not produced in the North Sea, it obviously makes sense to export North Sea oil to pay for them. It is traded internationally, and it would be silly not to maintain it in international trade. At the same time, I am sure that my hon. Friend is the first to recognise that we have international obligations. It is no gain to this country if other countries are in grave economic difficulties through oil shortage. We all sink or swim together. That is the reality, and we must work to that reality.
As I have said, North Sea oil is exported, but it makes economic sense as well as international collaborative sense. We must deal with this problem in an international context. That is what I have been seeking to do these last two days at the International Energy Agency conference that I chaired.

Mr. McCusker: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, especially as the situation in the Province is likely to be complicated by the serious energy crisis in the Irish Republic, where there are grave shortages, rationing and exorbitant prices?

Mr. Howell: My officials are in touch with officials concerned with the Northern Ireland situation. If the hon. Gentleman has specific problems, I shall be grateful if he will bring them to me urgently. I shall certainly look at them.

Mr. Charles Morrison: Whenever there is a petrol crisis, there tends to be a mad rush of motorists to the petrol pumps, with the consequence that far from a reduction in the amount of petrol in circulation there is an increase. Will my right hon. Friend therefore consider either insisting upon or at least encouraging petrol stations to insist on a minimum purchase, so that the amount of petrol in circulation is kept reasonably under control in order that those people who want petrol have a chance of getting it?

Mr. Howell: As I have explained, at this point there is no major shortage generally throughout the nation, although I recognise that there are local shortages. I am sure that the right way to approach this is through calm and careful policies of greater energy efficiency, demand restraint and conservation. I think that that is the right way. My Department will certainly ensure that in the public sector, and in both central and local government, there is a real drive for the most economical use of energy. I think that in the nation at large people will recognise that we are in an era of expensive energy. I am afraid that that is the reality that all of us must face every time we fill up our cars at the petrol pumps. It is that common sense which will be the best guide towards ensuring

that we have a sensible allocation of supplies.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call two more hon. Members from each side, because this is an extension of Question Time.

Mr. Tinn: As one of the cases of special urgency, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the problem of fishermen in constituencies such as my own, about which I have already written to him? Will he do his utmost to ensure that a livelihood that has been made increasingly precarious over the years is not further jeopardised by this new difficulty? Supplies of fuel for boats in my constituency are now almost totally exhausted.

Mr. Howell: I shall do my utmost to ensure that.

Mr. Skeet: Will my right hon. Friend indicate when he expects the trigger under the IEA to operate? What will the impact of that be on the United Kingdom? Will my right hon. Friend also indicate whether there has been any abuse on the international spot market at Rotterdam? Is not this causing the rise in prices, and should it not fall under some international control?

Mr. Howell: As to the spot market in Rotterdam, that is a matter that the International Energy Agency countries looked at very carefully. I do not think that they found any evidence of abuse. Inevitably, when a small margin is traded at a time of world tightness in oil one is bound to see oscillation in prices. But it is important to see that it is a regulated market and that there is no question of abuse. The IEA countries and the EEC Commission are looking at that matter very carefully in that light.
On the question of the so-called trigger—the point at which international allocation liabilities come in for all countries—the position is that Sweden has applied to the governing board of the IEA saying that it has difficulties such that it thinks that the international allocation system could now come into play. That application is being examined by the governing board to see whether it needs to bring in the whole apparatus of international allocation or whether it can solve the problem by ensuring that Sweden is


helped with her particular difficulties by the suppliers.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the Minister take on board the fact that the House is astounded by the complacency that he is showing about the oil situation, which is rapidly deteriorating, and by the fact that he seems to be expressing more sympathy with the Common Market and the people involved in the IEA than with consumers in Scotland and the United Kingdom? Will he, further, try to justify the export of 40 per cent. of North Sea crude from the United Kingdom at a time when consumers in Scotland are being rationed at the filling stations?

Mr. Howell: I reject the argument of complacency. I think that it is better than panic and chicken-headed action, which would lead to far greater difficulties in the future. We must work with the common sense of the people of the British nation—and I include Scotland in that. I am sure that that is reality.
As to the exports of crude, I have explained the basic reasons—which were recognised by my predecessors, as they are by anyone who has looked closely at this issue—why exports of North Sea oil are desirable. It is just as much in Scotland's interests as in those of everyone else that the economies of trading partners who trade in oil should be protected against major disruptions caused by oil shortage. That is reality, and I am sure that the people of Scotland recognise that reality, even if the hon. Gentleman does not.

Mr. David Price: In his consideration, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind particularly the problems of disabled drivers, for whom it is particularly difficult to take part in the rough competition of getting in at filling stations that are about to close? Many disabled drivers depend solely on their motor cars and cannot use public transport.

Mr. Howell: Yes. In my Department's talks with suppliers I shall ensure that that point is borne carefully in mind.

ADJOURNMENT (SPRING)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House at its rising on Friday do adjourn till Monday 11th June.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

3.42 p.m.

Mr. Donald Coleman: We have spent the past six days debating the Loyal Address. During that time, many questions have been put to Ministers on matters of vital importance, yet, after all that debating time, seemingly we are none the wiser about the Government's intentions than we were at the beginning of the debate on the Address. Now we find that the Government want to pack us off from this House, leaving us in a state of ignorance about their intentions and how those intentions will affect the people that we represent here. That is not good enough. It is for this reason that I join in this debate on the Adjournment motion.
I want to repeat to the Leader of the House some of the unanswered questions that my right hon. and hon. Friends have been putting to Ministers during the debate on the Loyal Address, in the vain hope, perhaps—nevertheless, it is a hope—that I may get from the Leader of the House some of the answers to those questions.
Naturally enough, representing Neath, an industrial area with a mix of industry in both the public sector and the private sector, and a special development area, I want to know much more about the Government's industrial policies and how they will affect my constituency. Yesterday one of my right hon. Friends referred to a "mad monk"—whoever he may be. I have in my constituency a ruined abbey monastery. What I do not want to see is the industry in my constituency put into a similarly ruined state because of the failure of the Government's industrial policies.
In recent years we have suffered the closure of a steelworks in the private sector of the industry, which resulted in the loss of about 800 jobs. Through the efforts of the West Glamorgan county council and the Welsh Development Agency, a new industrial future for the Briton Ferry area of my constituency has been purchased. In respect of Briton


Ferry, I want to know whether we are to take seriously the Government's threats in relation to grants and subsidies for industry. If we are to do so, clearly my constituents will have real cause for concern at these visions of the new industrial future for Britain that right hon. and hon. Members have in store for us.
I have mentioned the Welsh Development Agency. We on the Opposition Benches have fresh memories of the attitudes adopted by the Conservative Party when we set up the WDA when we were in Government. I hope that before the day is out we shall have some firm indications from the Government of their intentions about the future of the WDA, either from the Leader of the House or from the Secretary of State for Wales. Perhaps they will let us know a little more about the future of this agency, which is important to the people of Wales and to Welsh industry.
There is another matter about which, at an early stage in the life of the present Government, we ought to be given a clear indication, namely, the Government's intentions in terms of honouring the pledges that were given in respect of the Welsh coal industry. We are aware that there are difficulties within the industry, and we are also aware of the work of the tripartite committee that was set up and of the promises that were given by the late Government in respect of investment in the Welsh mining industry as a means of ensuring its future. We want to know—and so will those who are engaged in the industry—whether the Government intend to honour the pledges that were given before the election in respect of investment in the industry.
These are just a few of the questions to which we have not had answers. Many more questions could be put by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I do not want to detain the House for too long this afternoon, because my Welsh colleagues will be embarking later on a debate on Welsh affairs. However, these are matters of vital concern to the people of Wales. It is only just and proper that we should have answers to these questions, which involve the whole future of our people. It would be wrong for us to leave this House—to pack up and go away—without having some assurances that we can give to our people in Wales.

3.49 p.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I recall taking part in similar debates. On those occasions I sought to conform, Mr. Speaker, to the rules of order that you apply so strictly by arguing that the proposed recess was either too short or too long. I innovate today by arguing that for a change it is just about right. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on producing such an admirable motion, as I congratulate him on his elevation to the Government Bench.
For almost all purposes, the introductory session to this Parliament has been an ideal length. We have welcomed the opportunity to greet new colleagues, particularly on the Government side of the House. We have also had a chance to savour some welcome gaps on the Opposition Benches, and that savouring will continue for some time.
It is right and proper that we should now prepare ourselves for the rigours of the European hustings, to which Opposition Members are keenly looking forward, even if they are not sure which side they are on. We should allow the Government to collect their thoughts, read their briefs and prepare policy statements in a way that will satisfy the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman), if he will have the goodness to be more patient.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will assure me that there is no danger that this Government will fall into the same trap as previous Labour Governments did—of instant decisions, made in haste and announced without due thought. I am certain that we shall not repeat that mistake. The Government will not need much longer than 11 June to prepare themselves, and it is right that we should allow them that time.
The recess is not sufficiently long for all purposes. It is clearly not long enough to enable the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) to learn that it is better to speak standing up, nor to enable the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) to complete his compulsory Bible studies. We know that it takes him 22 years to come to a conclusion on anything. It is obviously not sufficiently long for the Opposition to learn that they were beaten at the last election. The acid of defeat has etched its way through some of the thinner skins


opposite. Even the previous Prime Minister finally seems to have the message, but it is depressing to see how many hon. Gentlemen opposite still believe that they are fighting the last election campaign.
Speeches were made yesterday that echoed the hustings. Arguments were advanced that clearly showed why the election resulted as it did. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) revealed that he, like many of his colleagues, had not had any intelligent contact with the electorate in the campaign. His remarks about the attitude of management and men towards denationalisation in the aerospace industry bear no relation to the views that they hold. They are grateful beyond measure to have a bad Government off their backs and, above all, are anxious to get on with making their decisions in a freer and more realistic climate.
I am glad to see the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) in his place. He made a characteristic intervention on a subject dear to him when he forecast enormous bitterness and divisions in the country. He went on to say that trade unions and organised workers would not be responsible for them. If in the last campaign he did not learn what an important part men like Mr. Bernard Dix and Mr. Bill Geddes, of NUPE, played in creating a climate of public revulsion, it is time that he went back and talked, for a change, to some real people. Perhaps he should take with him Mr. Alan Fisher, who will clearly be too busy with his trade union affairs to devote the time that he should to his membership of the board of British Airways.
Having said that, I hope that when we resume we shall have some sign that the Opposition have understood their position and intend to measure up to their duties. It is not the function of the Opposition simply to indulge in factious running commentaries and sit on the Front Bench below the Gangway and rabbit on in the way with which we have again become depressingly familiar. I hope that they will indicate that they realise their position of responsibility for the national interest—but I should be optimistic if I suggested that they would reach that stage by 11 June. With a little humility, contemplation and realism, they may

begin the long, slow task of becoming a responsible Opposition—a role that they will undoubtedly hold for many years to come.

3.55 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Cox: In the Gracious Speech there was no reference to London. Not only is it the capital city of the United Kingdom with the largest area of population, having 7 million people living in the Greater London area; we send to this House the largest number of Members of Parliament for any area in this country. The House should not adjourn before hearing the Government's attitude on some of the problems that unfortunately exist in London.
Under successive Governments, industry has left London. It has been encouraged to move to other parts of the country. We have had to face the closure of industry and changes in industrial development and manufacturing, and that has resulted in high unemployment in many parts of London. It may come as a shock to Members of this House who represent constituencies far away from London, but in some parts we have a higher percentage of the work force unemployed than in any other area of England, Scotland and Wales. I should like to know the Government's policy towards future development in London.
To overcome that unemployment, there is an urgent need for industrial development. In many parts of London sites are available for that development. Unless the Government are willing to co-operate with local authorities throughout Greater London, we will not see the progress that many hon. Members from London on both sides of the House wish to see. The Government must make a quick decision on their commitment to financial expenditure to develop industries in London. Without that, progress will be slow, if any is made at all.
Unemployment has been a particular problem to young people leaving school. The decline of industry in the Greater London area is one reason. In the past, that industry offered many apprenticeships to young people. Will the Government set up more training centres specifically to cater for young people, training them in the skills that industries are crying out for? Not only would that help to get many young people into constructive


employment; the long-term benefits would be felt in London and throughout the country.
Another aspect that I should like to bring up is the question of London's dockland. When do the Government expect to declare their policy for dockland? Although dockland is not in my constituency, it is in South London and it covers many hundreds of acres. Discussion has been taking place for many years about the future development of London, but always the stumbling block has been the amount of financial help that is available for the development of dockland, be it for housing, industry or recreation and leisure facilities. I hope that we shall soon hear from the Government their attitude to that. The delay in making constructive proposals for development in the dockland area has been far too long.
London is the tourist centre of the United Kingdom. People come here from all over the world. They no longer come only during the summer months; they come throughout the year. Many problems arise from the tourist influx into this great city. One is the insufficient number of hotels and another is the congestion on the London Transport system. One of the principal problems that the tourist faces in London, as indeed do Londoners, is the London Transport system. Many hon. Members have to use that system, and I do not think that any would disagree that it leaves a great deal to be desired. Many Londoners feel that the conditions in which they travel and the lack of comfort that they have to endure are worse than those that have to be endured by cattle transported from farm to market. Yet these are the conditions that Londoners and visitors to London have to bear, week in, week out, throughout the year.
The transport system—buses and trains—needs urgent modernisation. That will necessitate substantial financial help from the Government. It cannot be denied that if such improvements were seen—if people were certain that buses and trains would run on time and were more comfortable—the traffic congestion that occurs in the mornings and evenings in and out of London would cease, because motorists would say "If there is a reliable transport system, I will use it." Succes

sive Governments deserve to be criticised for the neglect that has occurred.
There is a transport system that could be developed without enormous cost. I speak of the River Thames. The Government should investigate the facilities that might be developed on the river. Many of us who travel abroad see the facilities that exist there. They see fast river transport, with comfortable facilities. A service of that kind could be developed in London without delay and without great cost. It could be used for transporting people in comfort and also for the transport of cargo. That would relieve the enormous congestion caused by juggernaut lorries that thread their way through central London and into the residential suburbs, causing havoc. I hope that we shall hear what the Government's thinking is on these issues. This is a matter which affects hon. Members irrespective of which party they represent, and it affects the people of London.
There are many problems that my hon. Friends and I will look to the Government to tackle. Will they give consideration to the appointment of a Minister for London? This idea has often been spoken about but, regrettably, nothing has been done. London Members feel that they have for long had a rough deal in not having someone to whom they can bring the problems that have to be overcome in the areas they represent. If the Government feel that that is not possible, will they consider introducing a Question Time for London? The Minister must know from his own experience how London Members have to struggle along against hon. Members from other parts of the United Kingdom to try to get a question tabled.
In view of the comments that I made at the beginning of my remarks, about the capital city being the area that sends the largest number of Members to the House, I hope that the Minister will give urgent consideration to the matters that I have raised.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: I add my congratulations to our new Leader of the House on his elevation and on the witty speech that he made last night, which was such a pleasure to hear. If I am not out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I also say what a


pleasure it is to see you sitting there and gracing the Chair so well?
I feel that I must protest strongly at the plan to send us away again for two or three weeks after such a long "holiday" and with so many problems unsolved. I shall feel inclined to vote against the motion unless I receive satisfactory assurances on matters that affect my constituents so gravely. Here I join with the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), a constituent of mine, in his plea for better transport for London. He probably goes to Paris sometimes, as I do, and sees there the cleanliness of the public transport, the absence of smoking in railway carriages and so on. We have a lot to learn from Continental countries, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman's words will be heeded by those who are responsible.
I feel that I cannot go home until a promise of action about petrol supplies has been given to my scattered rural area of South-West Norfolk. Norfolk has the largest number of motor cars per 1,000 population in the country, because cars are essential for employment. With no main centres of employment within South-West Norfolk, daily journeys of 30 or 40 miles or more have to be made to Norwich, Thetford or King's Lynn. How can I go home without some statement of action when petrol station after petrol station is closing down?
From inquiries, I understand that this dangerous situation has been known to the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) the former Secretary of State for Energy, but he has sat on it for many months without taking action. I have heard that several heads of oil companies warned the previous Government that the shortage was likely to get worse, but no warnings have been given to the general population to reduce petrol consumption. I believe that warnings must now be given. I repeat, I am inclined to vote against the motion unless my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Energy promises a full statement shortly on petrol supplies.
One other matter on which strong feelings are being expressed by my farming constituents, and on which we must have a statement from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food before the House adjourns, is the disastrous position

of pig breeders and fatteners. It was brought about through lack of decisive action and the loss of good will in the EEC, which was the fault of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the last Government.
Although I do not expect miracles today, I must have assurances within the next few months that we shall have a statement on the action that my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food proposes to take both here and in the EEC to prevent the national pig herd from falling even lower in numbers and to prevent more bacon factories from closing. I was alarmed to be told on the telephone this morning by the National Farmers' Union that the Fatstock Marketing Corporation factory at Calne, in Wiltshire, was likely to be closed.
I also hope to learn before the end of the year that urgent steps will be taken to stop the loss of good agricultural land. I do not know whether it is fully realised in the House that we are losing 125,000 acres of good agricultural land every year. This has happened every year for the past five or six years. Yet when one enters London or any other big city by train and sees the derelict wastes alongside the railway line, one realises that new towns should be established and buildings put up on those derelict lands, old factory sites, and so on, before green fields are taken and good food land is put out of production for ever.
Finally, I should point out that a month ago I should have voted against the motion because of the lack of contact between Great Britain and Rhodesia. Thank goodness, I do not have to do that today. But we should not go away without a statement that we shall never again be asked to vote for sanctions. I must warn my right hon. Friend the Government Chief Whip that that would be asking for the moon.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Eric Deakins: I am tempted to follow the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) down the by-ways of the pig industry—an industry for which I have a great deal of affection, having worked in it for 15 years. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be regrettable if the Fat-stock Marketing Corporation were to


have to close one of the largest pig factories in the country, at Calne, in Wiltshire, as a result of the depredations of the common agricultural policy, which must be blamed.
I wish to raise what is basically a House of Commons matter. I gave the Leader of the House notice that I would raise it, because it is a rather complex subject. From the few researches that I have been able to do in the past few days, I have been unable to produce any particular answers. The matter concerns the relationship of the newly elected Members of the European Assembly to this House. I raise it because during our recess the elections to the Assembly will take place, and by the time we return there will be 81 United Kingdom Members.
My particular concern stems, first, from the third report of the Select Committee on direct elections to the European Assembly in the 1975–76 Session. It made some recommendations after considering the whole matter of links between this Parliament and the European Assembly Members from the United Kingdom. The Committee said—I think wisely—that any question of formal links should be considered further and with great caution.
I am not particularly concerned about that matter now, as I do not think that there is any danger of speedy decisions being taken. However, although it had had virtually no representations on the point, as it admitted in its report, the Committee recommended, on the question of informal links, that certain services and facilities, such as the Library, refreshment facilities, bars, and so on, should be made available to Members of the Assembly.
The Committee said that the matter should be referred to the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services). I have not been able to discover—perhaps someone wiser than I will have been able to do so—whether the Services Committee took any action in the immediately subsequent Sessions. However, I have discovered a reference in its ninth report, in the Session 1977–78. It is a long report, but I wish to quote briefly from two paragraphs in the section headed "The European Assembly". Paragraph 21 says:

Provision of accommodation or services for elected Members of this assembly, who are Members of neither House at Westminster, is outside our present terms of reference.
Paragraph 22 says:
We could not possibly provide accommodation for a large number of additional parliamentarians within our present over-taxed resources.
I think that my concern is shared by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I believe that it is a nonparty matter. I am not concerned to argue the case for or against any particular formal links between Members of this House and Members of the Assembly, but I am concerned to stress the importance to every hon. Member of any decision that may be taken on the matter of informal links and the possible use—I stress "possible"—of any facilities in the Palace of Wesminster, particularly in the House of Commons part, by the newly elected Members of the European Assembly.
I take just one example—our Library, which provides an excellent service, as anyone who has used it will agree. The staff are first-class. Yet we know from our personal experience that accommodation, both for the staff who work there and for the Members who use it, is already overtaxed, as the Services Committee said.
In particular, I very much value the information and research services. I believe that Back Benchers on both sides of the House value them very much, as they do not have access to the Civil Service. Those services are also overstretched. If for no other reason, it would be wrong for the House to ask the staff of the Library to take on the extra burden, if such were to be suggested, of providing services or facilities for about 81 Members who are not Members of the House of Commons. I understand that four or five would have dual membership.
Whatever one may think about their salaries, I believe that Members of the European Assembly will have fairly generous expenses. The European Community has always been fairly generous—certainly in terms of expenses, and usually in terms of salaries—to those who work in it or for it. I believe that if they wished those Members could provide their own secretarial and research facilities in this country, in addition to such facilities in Strasbourg or wherever the Assembly will


meet. There is also the possibility that the Assembly would wish—it is entirely a matter for it—to set up its own national office in each of the member States to provide certain services and facilities to the Members elected in those States.
Basically, my concern is that if the decision must be made about informal links it should not be made before we return. I hope that I shall have at least that assurance from the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon.
I am also concerned to know how such a decision, if needed, will be taken. I have already indicated that the Services Committee has—it would not be fair to say "washed its hands of the matter"—indicated that the matter does not fall within its present terms of reference. Certainly, it is far too important to be left to the usual channels to present us with a decision subsequently.
Perhaps I may give an analogy. Suppose there were no Lobby correspondents in the House and we were faced with a decision, which I imagine the House would welcome, to provide Lobby correspondents with facilities, including the use of various refreshment facilities, the Members' Lobby and certain other facilities which are not available to the general public. I suspect that we would not leave such a decision to the usual channels.
I believe that this issue, concerning the 81 Members of the European Assembly from the United Kingdom, is even more important. The matter should be dealt with in such a way that all hon. Members can express their views. That is not always the way when such matters are dealt with through the usual channels. Perhaps there is a role here for the House of Commons Commission.
I confess to a degree of ignorance about this. It was set up when I was sitting on the Treasury Bench and perhaps I did not take the interest in it that I should have done. I do not know whether this would be an appropriate issue for that Commission to deal with when it starts meeting. But, whatever the mechanism for dealing with this issue, which is important and which affects us all, I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to assure right hon. and hon. Members that, whatever the mechanism, no decision will be taken without making every provision for

right hon. and hon. Members on both sides to make their views felt either directly in the Chamber or through the Parliamentary Labour Party, the 1922 Committee or other Back Bench committees. It is a matter that affects every one of us. Above all, it affects all the staff who work in the House.
When we are taking a decision on this matter, I hope that we shall bear in mind that we are taking it not only for ourselves but for the very loyal, devoted and hardworking staff who serve us very faithfully throughout the year.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I am particularly concerned with the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, which was in such imprecise terms and of such light content that it cannot be regarded as a basis upon which people should make their reasonable plans throughout the United Kingdom until the House reassembles as long away as 11 June.
There are specific aspects to which I wish to draw the attention of the Leader of the House. This is the season of the year when in agriculture not only is spring sowing going on but, in many parts of the United Kingdom and certainly in the South-West, there is very heavy fuel consumption involved in the making of silage, without which it is not possible to feed cows in the winter, especially with the price freeze on milk production. I am afraid that what my right hon. Friend said is not a basis upon which people can make rational judgments on whether they should exhaust their supplies of diesel oil on silage-making on the assumption that they will be able to replenish them.
The reports that I get from my constituency or thereabouts in Devon are that the quota is being cut, even where deliveries are being made, to 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. less than was being consumed last year. That is very different from the figure of 1 per cent. shortfall that my hon. Friend appeared to have fixed in his mind. He gave no explanation why diesel oil should be in particularly short supply, nor, more importantly—and what I hoped to hear from him—how long the shortage was likely to continue and what its percentage,


compared with consumption last year, was likely to be. We need a statement about this before the House goes into an Adjournment at a period when, in agriculture, the operations that will be taking place are those which consume very large quantities of diesel oil.
Moreover, as the summer progresses, when corn is harvested the decision that will have to be made is whether to dry the grain or leave it unharvested in the hope that its water content will fall further before it is potentially ruined by bad weather. Guessing what the weather will do is quite difficult enough without having an unnecessary and avoidable area of uncertainty about other parameters in the equation, such as fuel supplies. That is why I press my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to arrange for his right hon. Friend to make another statement tomorrow giving very much more detail about the present fuel position and specifically as between the various types of fuel—petrol, paraffin, diesel and the heavier grades of fuel oil—since the shortages are not of the same magnitude in each of them.
Perhaps I may be allowed to make my own small contribution, possibly to helping in one aspect. I refer to the consumption of petrol. In the autumn of last year I noticed that one company—BP, as it happens—was advertising in an attempt to induce people in Britain to do what has been done for many years on the Continent, which is to run their cars on much lower viscosity oils than has been habitual in Britain. I tried this for myself in a fairly elderly Triumph 2000. Having established that with a 20/50 oil I normally get a fuel consumption of 22·7 miles to the gallon, I tried over 4,000 miles the effect of putting in a lower viscosity oil—an SAE 10 oil. Petrol consumption went from 22·7 miles to the gallon to 25·4 miles. That represents a reduction in petrol consumption of more than 11 per cent., which is in excess of the claims made by the company concerned in its advertisements. I have now tried it in a different car, and I have experienced an improvement in a 4-cylinder car of the order of 7 per cent. Taking a mean between these, it is clear that if we are to endeavour to cut our fuel consumption in road vehicles we ought to give very serious attention to

going over, as a general practice, to oils of very much lower viscosity than has been the habit in this country, for no very good engineering reason—and I speak as a former engineer.
The Department of Energy should look very seriously at this possibility because, for some time, the Department has been given to advertising on television. Right hon. and hon. Members will not be unfamiliar with the gentleman with oversized shoes. The potential fuel savings from low viscosity oils ought properly to be drawn to the attention of the public very much more widely.
To end this personal reminiscence, with the coming of higher temperatures I changed back—I now find that it was unnecessary—to a broad-band viscosity oil, 20/50, just before last week, and I nearly ran out of petrol on the way back from the House to my constituency last weekend. I had forgotten the much higher fuel consumption on the heavier-viscosity oil. That came as an abrupt reminder to me that what I had noticed one way when I changed to a thinner viscosity oil worked the other way when I changed back, as might be reasonably expected.
I must press my right hon. Friend to make a very detailed statement tomorrow.
There is another matter on which perhaps my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House can help us. Can he advise us on the extent to which it is the Government's wish that all questions about fuel should be directed to Ministers in the Department of Energy and the extent to which questions specifically related to specific activities, such as agriculture and fishing, should be directed to Ministers in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? This is desirable so that right hon. and hon. Members do not have the frustrating experience of having their questions transferred with the delay which results from them.
Another aspect of this which comes with the fuel shortage is the need for a statement on the question whether there is to be any change in policy on the licensing of buses, though I accept that it is unreasonable to expect this too early. As fuel becomes more difficult to obtain and as it goes up in price, there may be a still stronger case for relaxing the criteria for bus operators so that small operators can experiment


in providing services in areas that are inadequately served or not served at all.
A policy statement on that matter at some stage would be very welcome. It would be unreasonable to expect such a statement to be made before the House goes into recess on Friday. I would be grateful, however, if my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House would ask his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport to give some thought to this question during the ample period of recess, which does not end until 11 June.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: I am glad that the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) referred to the energy crisis, although in fairly specific terms. I want to refer to the matter in general terms. It is highly irresponsible for us to go on a fortnight's vacation from this House—apart from the fact that I do not trust this Government out of my sight for longer than a Saturday or Sunday—when the energy crisis is changing for the worse almost daily. Since the start of this year the leading OPEC producers have raised their prices by anything from 30 per cent. to 40 per cent., with further increases likely in the near future. There is pressure on the Saudi Arabians to do likewise. Whether they can resist that pressure one does not know. There are newspaper reports today that Algeria is raising the price of its top crude by another 13 per cent., to $21 a barrel, which indicates how these people have got us, and the Western world, literally over a barrel.
Next month's meeting of the OPEC producers in Geneva will be critical for the future development of our economy, the American economy and all Western European economies in the foreseeable future. A casual reading of the press indicates that the big industrial Powers are grabbing all the oil on which they can get their hands. When the Minister made his statement this afternoon, there was mention of the Rotterdam spot market, where prices have soared to $33 a barrel. No doubt, the present British Government thoroughly approve of this uncontrolled greed. It is the law of supply and demand that they thoroughly recommend to our people and to our country, especially when North Sea oil

resources enable us to ride these storms better than most countries.
I am glad that the Secretary of State for Energy implied this afternoon that it would be very short-sighted for the United Kingdom to take a nationalistic, narrow view of the energy crisis. It is a world crisis. We cannot isolate ourselves from its world context.
I was interested to read that at the two-day conference of the International Energy Agency, just ended, our Minister, who chaired the conference, got agreement to reduce demand for oil by 2 million barrels a day. That is roughly 5 per cent. of total IEA consumption. But that target was set a long time ago—in March, I think. One sees little evidence of any progress towards achieving that target either here or anywhere else. The burden of the problem is shown in the United States, where the American people cannot yet accept the fact that there is a critical world shortage of energy. What will our own Minister do in the short term? Will there be any attempt to engage in a crash programme to increase coal production and consumption to relieve the pressure on oil supplies?
My hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) referred to the National Coal Board's investment plans, with specific reference to Wales. I want to put the matter in the broader context of the whole of the ambitious investment programme of the NCB in the long term. In the short term, I agree that it cannot do much to relieve the immediate burden. We have to look at the matter in both the short-term and the long-term contexts. There are suspicions and fears within the Coal Board and the coal industry that the Government intend to curtail the investment programme of the NCB as part of their general curtailment of public expenditure. That would be an extremely short-sighted and foolish policy in which to engage.
It is also foolish to attempt to slow down the development of our nuclear power capacity. Questions were raised in the House today about the Torness nuclear station in Scotland. I hope that the Government will firmly resist the environmentalists. I do not question their sincerity, but the sooner we understand that we must rid ourselves of, or reduce, our dependence on Middle East sources of


supply, the better for everyone in the Western world. The same applies to the encouragement of production of natural gas, not only from the North Sea but from our own indigenous coal supplies.
At the end of the IEA conference, our Minister said that a 5 per cent. proposed reduction of our enery consumption would mean a change of habits in this country. We know how difficult it is to get our basically conservative people, now with a capital "C" as well as a small "c", to change their habits in matters of this kind, but the attempt has to be made. We have to convince our people that we are in the middle of a deep-seated energy crisis and that if action is not quickly taken there will be a rip-roaring energy crisis this winter, with dire consequences for unemployment, industrial production, and so on.
The Government must quickly announce their short-term policies, not excluding the possibility of the rationing of resources. I hope that they will not carry the dogma too far by saying that the only honest rationing is rationing by the purse. I do not believe that. It will not be accepted in the rural areas or by large sections of our community. If there must be rationing, it has to be seen to be fair to every section of the community.
I want to refer to a completely unrelated but, in a sense, just as important matter. During the debate on the Queen's Speech, several hon. Members on the Opposition Benches asked for an undertaking from the Government that they intend to relate further increases in the old-age pension either to the cost of living or to average earnings, whichever increase is the greater in any period of 12 months. That question was put specifically again yesterday to the Prime Minister, and she refused to answer it. It was put to her by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis). The right hon. Lady resisted giving a specific answer to it.
In reply to another question, in another context, she said:
I am not known for my objectives or purposes being unclear."—[Official Report, 22 May 1979; Vot. 967, c. 870.]
That is a sentence of crude grammatical construction, but we got the general idea that she implied "I always tell the truth".

But she has not told the truth about old-age pensions. The right hon. Gentleman is more honest. I am asking him not to use that crude language, but to say "Yes, we are going to ensure that old-age pension increases in future shall be tied, as laid down by statute, to the rise in the cost of living or the rise in average earnings, whichever is the greater". The right hon. Gentleman can give a simple "Yes" or "No" to that question, with no flipping about. Let us have a straight answer. Let us get off to a good start. I think that the right hon. Gentleman can give us a fine example this afternoon.
I refer now to another matter, which is related in a way rising prices. Some prices have gone up under this Government as a direct consequence of their action in abolishing the Price Commission. Bread prices would not have gone up last week had the Price Commission not been abolished or its powers withdrawn.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: How does the hon. Gentleman know?

Mr. Hamilton: Because there was a freeze under the terms of the Price Commission. Only when the Price Commission was abolished were Ranks Hovis McDougall Ltd. and Allied Bakeries Ltd. allowed to put an extra 1p on a loaf. They were allowed to do that by the right hon. Lady because both companies contributed £30,000 each, last year alone, to Tory Party election funds. Every time a housewife buys a loaf of bread or a packet of biscuits, she is contributing to Tory Party funds. That is the pay-off that these companies are already getting from the Government, and there is more in the pipeline.
Reverting to the energy crisis, a spokesman for one of the oil companies last month said "We shall be faced with £1 a gallon for petrol." That would not have been tolerated with the existence of the Price Commission, but the oil companies are now to get it because some of them also contributed to Tory Party election funds. All these companies will get a pay-off.
Many members of the Cabinet were directors of insurance companies. The insurance companies will be next in line for a pay-off from the Government, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign Secretary and many others on the Government Front Bench had


directorships in some of those companies. I exclude the Leader of the House. He is a disinterested party and can therefore answer these questions objectively in winding up the debate.
Another question that concerns my constituents and many others is beer prices. The beerage has a powerful influence on the Tory Party and Government. It has contributed magnificently to Tory Party funds, so it is expecting to be able to put 2p or 3p on a pint of beer. That might take place in the next fortnight, whilst we are safely away, supposedly at the hustings for the European elections. I shall not be at the hustings I shall be sniffing about down here trying to find out what is going on, but they will be burrowing away in Whitehall and I shall not be able to get at them. I like to get at them here. I do not trust them. I do not think that we should go away for a fortnight's holiday. If the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) is prepared to put the Tellers in and vote against the motion, I shall be one of them.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I am content that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) should not take a fortnight's recess but should remain here. However, for myself and possibly others, I am happy with the motion that has been proposed, or perhaps I should say that I would be were it not that I share the anxiety of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and others about the statement this afternoon on oil and its possible future shortage. It is not satisfactory that the Secretary of State should answer a private notice question about 48 hours before we go into recess. That is not his fault. He had the question put to him and he answered it. But there are many uncertainties and difficulties here which must be the subject of a debate at the earliest possible moment.
I hope that we shall not have a rush of altruism about this subject. We have been hearing a great deal about the international allocation of oil supplies, which largely means British oil supplies from the North Sea. This afternoon I have been hearing some disturbing observations about the operation of the spot market in Rotterdam and elsewhere. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to assure us that if there are to be

any transfers of British oil to other countries in the coming months under the terms of the IEA agreement or the EEC directive, they will be on a full commercial basis at the current spot market price.
The Secretary of State said something about the Commission investigating the situation in the spot market. I think that there was also some hint of an inquiry by the International Energy Agency into the operations of the spot market. Be it so. One wants all markets to work properly. But I hope that that will not be an excuse for not paying the commercial price for British oil. I have a nasty suspicion that it might turn out that way.
This is not an unimportant subject. We are happy to have the revenues from North Sea oil, but our prosperity as a nation depends on the prosperity of our industry, which is in many ways labouring. If the pound gets stronger, it will impose additional tests for the competitive ability of our industry.
This Adjournment motion is not the time for going back over this subject, but, in the interests of general policy—entirely against my judgment—we abandoned the great competitive advantages of cheap food for the higher tariffs of our colleagues in the European Community. We now seem set to take on yet a third burden—the cost of oil storage for others.
One advantage of having a supply of oil in our own territorial area is that we do not need the same amount of storage as a country which depends entirely on the importation of oil. With present interest rates in the world, the cost of oil storage is very high. Large amounts of oil are used by the industrialised countries of the West. They need to carry three months' to six months' oil supplies.
The interest cost on that kind of storage is an important factor in the operating costs of their industry. Britain, being more or less self-sufficient in oil, need carry only small stocks of oil, because it has the first call on the incoming flow from its own fields. Under the EEC directive, however, and quite apart from the provisions of the directive, as a consequence of the agreement with the IEA we are having to carry stocks of a magnitude which our own needs do not justify. We have to incur the running interest expense which that involves.
If there is also to be some jockeying by those who benefit at our expense from those agreements as to not even paying the full spot price on the Rotterdam or other relevant market, we look like making a very bad bargain.
All these are merely apprehensions. It may be that we shall solve the storage dispute. The Select Committee on European legislation had a very interesting meeting on this subject some months ago with the then Minister. These problems were examined with great particularity. They were identified, and there was no dispute that something should be done about them. But time moves on. Other issues divert our attention, but the European Commission is there beavering away all the time. I have a suspicion—I put it no higher than that—that we shall find ourselves carrying the burden of stocks for nine countries instead of one, and that when it comes to transfers of oil under the IEA or European agreements we shall find that a special price has been agreed.
I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will remember that we must look after British interests and that, on the whole, we are more altruistic than are those nations with which we have to deal. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give some kind of assurance for the future of our oil supplies in those respects.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: These debates are usually an occasion when subjects are raised as a pretext for opposing the Adjournment, even though hon. Members in their heart of hearts feel that the Adjournment motion for the recess is justified. But in this instance there is every reason to regard the proposed Adjournment as outrageous, coming as it does only a fortnight after the new Parliament has been opened. Many uncertainties face many people in various parts of these islands. People want answers and guidelines about the new policies, and the new Government should be making these matters clear.
During the time of the last Government, the Conservatives criticised Labour on a number of occasions for having made policy declarations during parliamentary recesses. I can remember a

number of such instances during the long Summer Recess. Inevitably, during the next fortnight there will be a rush of policy declarations, because guidelines are needed. Since those declarations will be made during the recess, it will be impossible for Members of Parliament to react to them when they are announced. Some measures hanging over from the last Parliament need urgently to be cleared.
Let me spell out three of them. The first concerns parts of the Education Bill which was lost. It concerns grants for the teaching of the Welsh language. Education authorities in Wales are expecting information about that. Clearly, it will not be forthcoming during the next year, as had been hoped, and the education authorties want to know where they stand.
Another is the Pneumoconiosis Etc. (Workers Compensation) Act. That Act was of considerable topicality in the last days of the last Parliament. It comes into effect on 4 July. Between now and then the House must pass a string of orders on the subject. There will probably be no time between 11 June and 4 July for these orders to secure the attention that they need. In such circumstances it is ridiculous that Parliament should be going into recess.
The question of the fourth television channel as it affects Wales has been put into a state of confusion as a result of the Queen's Speech. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) will be able to say something on that matter later this evening.
Other uncertainties have been left hanging over from the last Parliament. There is uncertainty for industry that is contemplating investment programmes which will bring much-needed jobs. What will happen about the Industry Act 1972 and its grants structure? What will hapen about the Welsh Development Agency, the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Land Authority for Wales? We have heard the Conservative Party's opinion of the Community Land Act, but the situation facing the Land Authority in Wales is somewhat different from that in England. We shall want a reply on that.
Certain practical problems face local authorities. We have heard that guidance has been given that they should not be recruiting staff, that they should now be


taking part in an exercise of natural wastage. However, during the next three weeks, local authorities will be making appointments which have been advertised and for which short lists have been compiled. Are these posts not to be filled? My own county council in Gwynedd is to consider tomorrow the appointment of the county treasurer. Do the Government's guidelines suggest that it should not be doing so? Four senior officers in the treasurer's department will be retiring over the next few months. Should they not be replaced? Local authorities need answers on these points, and if they are not to be given when Parliament is sitting we shall get them in the recess. That is totally unsatisfactory.
The oil crisis is most serious. The day after the House reassembles, the Chancellor will be presenting his Budget. Hon. Members should have every opportunity in the next fortnight to press upon the Chancellor on the Floor of the House the implication of putting more duty on petrol. We have already heard the £1 a gallon prediction, and there have been suggestions that the price will go as high as £1·20 or £1·30.
If, in addition to the increase caused by international pressures on prices, there is to be extra taxation, the strain on many rural areas will become insufferable. That will affect particularly the rural areas with low incomes, such as the area I represent. There, motor transport is not a luxury but a necessity for getting to work. Unlike in London where there are four or five modes of transport for getting to work, in my constituency there is very often only one. My constituents have to make journeys of 20, 30 or 40 miles to work, and if the tax on petrol is increased the burden upon them will be unacceptable.
It is wrong for us to shrink away from this problem during the fortnight leading up to a decisive and important Budget. For all these reasons, I believe it to be wrong for us to go into another recess.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am glad of the chance to speak after the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) because my constituency in Cheshire will share some of the problems that will face his constituents if the price of petrol goes up dramatically. There

are large rural areas in my constituency, and any substantial increase in the price of petrol will seriously affect the mobility of people who cannot rely on the sort of public transport that is available in our major cities.
My Government must therefore pay particular attention, in any decisions they take, to the plight of the rural areas. This particularly applies to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor in respect of any increase in the tax on petrol or in excise duty.
I rise to speak now because I was prevented from putting what I consider to be important points to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy when he replied to the private notice question earlier today. There is increasing concern in this country about future sources of fuel. I believe that the Government will soon have to make further statements, and I thought it interesting that the Opposition Front Bench spokesman asked my right hon. Friend to come to the House on a regular basis to make statements about the energy situation.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will ensure that regular statements are made and that, if necessary, information is given during the recess to the press so that people know what the situation is at any time.
Casting my mind back a few months, I find it interesting to recall that when we were in Opposition many hon. Members then on the Government Benches, especially among those below the Gangway, were only too keen to see the Government of the Shah of Iran brought down. The revolution came in that country, and I say to those who were so keen to see the Shah removed that, perhaps, they ought to accept some responsibility for the fuel crisis now facing this country and the world as a whole.
I hope that that fact will be borne in mind by those who, through their speeches, and, maybe, through certain things that they did, gave encouragement to the revolutionary forces in the Middle East to bring down a Government friendly to the West, who were providing large quantities of the oil required by the West for its industry and its standard of life. I only regret that the Shah of Iran is no longer there presiding over that country's


affairs. The problems confronting us today have arisen because his friendly Government are no longer in power.
I am not sure that my right hon. Friend fully appreciates that the people of Britain will be extremely angry if they see huge quantities of the oil from the North Sea being diverted to other countries while we go short. I recognise that we have overseas obligations, and I appreciate that we do not wish to see a world industrial depression or recession which would inevitably affect industry and employment in this country. Equally, I do not want or expect this nation to enable our major industrial competitors to continue to compete with us—perhaps even assisting them directly to do so—by allowing them to have large quantities of the oil from the North Sea.
I therefore share the views expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell). If any EEC directive instructs us to part with large quantities of the oil which we are producing from our own resources in order to assist our major industrial competitors while our own industry is at the same time starved, the people of this country will be very angry indeed.
My request, therefore, to my right hon. Friend, who, if I may say so, made a brilliant speech last night in replying to the debate on the Address, is that he will make some comment on this matter this afternoon. It is wrong that the people of this country, who have contributed in many ways to the development of our resources in the North Sea, should suffer. We are reliably informed that we are some 80 per cent. or more self-sufficient in oil. I acknowledge that we have to import a certain amount of oil to be blended with oil from the North Sea so as to make it acceptable for all the purposes required in this country, but people are asking me the direct question: if we are so nearly self-sufficient, why is a great shortage developing within the United Kingdom?
In the same context, I refer specifically now to problems in my constituency, where there are many smaller businesses. I am pleased to know that my Government pay more than lip service to the importance of smaller businesses and all that they can do to reduce the present unacceptable levels of unemployment.

But I am concerned about a number of small hauliers and transport contractors in my constituency. I see that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) nods in assent, so I take it that he shares my concern. These small firms have limited fuel storage facilities and they are suffering because the oil companies are not prepared to deliver to places where the drops are small. I hope, therefore, that the Government will discuss this matter with the oil companies to ensure that small firms do not suffer as a result of the major oil companies' allocation of fuel to their customers.
That brings me to the specific example of the smaller garage or distributor of the kind mentioned during the exchanges on the private notice question today. I believe that, sadly, the major oil companies are allocating their resources primarily to their own company-owned sites. But the smaller distributor and garage—I endorse here what was said by the hon. Member for Caernarvon, who represents a rural constituency in Wales—is the major supplier in rural areas. If these smaller distributors and garages cannot get supplies, they will be in great financial difficulty and, what is more, those who are dependent upon them will also have serious trouble.
In my own town of Congleton there is a small garage which, on the account system, supplies the county council, nurses, local hospitals and local doctors, quite apart from all the commercial concerns which have accounts with it. That garage is not now receiving the supplies to enable it to fulfil basic requirements. It has already put up a sign saying that it wishes to supply only regular customers, yet it does not have sufficient fuel to meet supplies for the essential services which every community has come to expect.
My area has many features in common with that of the hon. Member for Caernarvon. A number of small farmers have been in touch with me, both during the election campaign and since. Small farmers with limited fuel storage facilities cannot get supplies because the drop is, say, only 300, 400 or 500 gallons and the oil companies and distributors are not prepared to make these small drops when their own company sites and the large users are taking drops of 2,000,


3,000, 4,000 or even 5,000 gallons at a time.
Grave problems are developing, and they are especially acute in the rural areas. I hope that, in looking at the situation which we face, the Government will take these matters into consideration. In this context I associate myself with many of the remarks of the hon. Member for Caernarvon.
I turn next to the position of farming. Sadly, during the debate on the Address we did not hear a great deal about this industry although it is one of the most important to this country and one of the most efficient. Our farmers are willing and able to make, and should make, a greater contribution to our economic progress. They can produce more food from our own resources—although there is an echo in that phrase, I am not referring directly to the White Paper published some years ago by the Labour Government—and they seek to make a greater contribution to our economic progress. They can do that only if the Government give them the encouragement and the cash to do so. They are not asking for a direct subsidy. I leave it to hon. Members on the Opposition Bench to press the matter of subsidies.
I am concerned that we should be going into recess without the farming community throughout the land, in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland, being told that in our negotiations with our partners in the European Economic Community we shall seek a devaluation of the green pound—a devaluation of, I suggest, 5 per cent. to 7½ per cent.—within the next three or four months so that our farmers may be enabled to compete with farmers on the Continent in a situation of much fairer competition.
At present our farmers face unfair competition. But they can make a major contribution to our balance of payments. They could save our balance of payments several hundred million pounds a year if they were given the return to enable them to do so.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House represents a constituency in which there are some farms, and I know that it is an important farming area. I must tell him that the farmers expect our Government to give them justice. There is at present a disparity in the value of the

various currencies, and a great disparity in relation to the green pound between the United Kingdom and the major currency countries of the EEC. I believe that a devaluation—a small devaluation of 5 per cent. to 7½ per cent.—would give our farmers that extra income which would enable them not only to produce more food for the people of Britain but to give us a more secure supply of food in the long term, enabling us to do much better on our balance of payments while at the same time ensuring that we are not so dependent upon the import of food from elsewhere in the world.
I shall be happy to be away from the House for a fortnight. I remind the House that because of the Dissolution or the previous Parliament and the election campaign that ensued we forwent our Easter break. Many of us were active preparing for the general election when normally we would have been spending a great deal of time helping our constituents. At that time we were in fact preparing to help our constituents subject to re-election.
The recess which begins at the beginning of next week and continues until 11 June is welcome. It will enable our new colleagues on both sides of the House to get to know their constituencies and what is going on in their constituencies very much better in the absence of the hustle and bustle of an election campaign, which often establishes a rather false image in a constituency, not least for the candidates themselves.
I welcome the break but I hope that matters of considerable importance such as the future of our oil supplies, the price of oil and the problems that shortages will create for various areas will not be overlooked by the Government. Surely we stood on the platform that we would be the Government of the people and that we would be concerned about their interests, whoever they are, whatever they are and wherever they are.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. Allen Adams: I do not think that there should be a recess now. The problems facing the Scottish people are too urgent to be allowed to lie on the table for two weeks.
By their doctrinaire and unreasonable approach to the public sector, the Government have thrown that area into turmoil.


In a few short days they have created a resentment in the pubilc sector that we have not seen for many years.
My area of interest is in the social services. I am the deputy convener of social services for the Strathclyde regional council. During the election campaign I travelled in my constituency visiting children's homes, hospitals and eventide homes. I spoke to home helps and those who support those in need in the community such as the old, the sick, the infirm and the mentally and physically handicapped. It clearly came across to me that there was not a need for cuts in public expenditure but a crying need for a massive injection of capital and revenue in the public sector.
In my constituency in the West of Scotland there are 100,000 souls. There is a need for increased public expenditure to build three or four more eventide homes. Within the constituency there is a waiting list for places in eventide homes of 300 to 400. In Strathclyde and the West of Scotland as a whole there is probably a waiting list of 4,000 to 5,000. We all know that people are living longer. The deduction may be made that many of those on the waiting lists are in their 70s, 80s and 90s.
Against that background I find it rather obscure for the Government to say that there should be a cut in public expenditure. In Strathclyde there are 7,000 children in care. Many of them are in care in buildings that are over 100 years old, that are ill-equipped and ill-staffed. The staffs are not enjoying reasonable salaries. Is that an argument for less public expenditure? I think not. Surely it is an argument for increased public expenditure.
A scandal that exists in Scotland and probably elsewhere is the total lack of care and attention that we have paid to the mentally and physically handicapped. That is especially scandalous because it is not difficult to project 10 years ahead to discover how many mentally and physically handicapped children will be leaving school. However, we have a disgraceful shortfall of places in adult training centres for those who leave school at 16 and 17 years of age. Is that a case, as the Conservatives would have had us believe during the election campaign, for less public expenditure?

I think not. Surely it is a prima facie case for more public expenditure.
During the election campaign we did not hear from Conservatives whether they really think that those working in children's homes, old folk's homes and in hospitals as porters are earning reasonable wages when their weekly take-home pay is £34, £35 or £36. The answer is "Yes" or "No". We heard Conservatives talking about cutting public expenditure but not about the consequences. The take-home pay to which I have referred underlines the fact that there is a need not for less public expenditure but for more.
I turn from the public sector to the industrial scene. As a Scot I am especially concerned at the lack of mention by the Government of the future of the Scottish Development Agency. If one thing has singularly failed in Scotland, it is private capital. A good example of that failure is the shipyards on the Clyde. There was a post-war boom in shipbuilding. Many on the upper reaches of the Clyde made a great deal of money in putting ships back on the water and replacing those that had been sunk during the war. Where did that money go? It did not go back into the yards. I worked in one and I know that that did not happen. The yards on the Clyde were 30 and 40 years out of date. The owners woke up one morning and said "We cannot compete with Japan and Germany." They blamed the workers. There was a total lack of foresight and investment.
The same may be said of many of the small engineering factories that existed in Scotland over the past 50 years. They did not move with the times. Their owners were far too avaricious to see 10 or 20 years ahead. They milked the profits, put the money in the bank and forgot about the future. They are now blaming the working people of Scotland.
I have demonstrated that capital has failed Scotland. We need not less Government intervention in the affairs of Scotland but a great deal more. The Highland and Islands Development Board should be given more powers and more money, especially more powers of compulsory purchase, so that it may clear out some of the lairds who still stalk the moors of Caithness and Sutherland. We need more money for the Scottish Development Agency. It is clear that we shall


not get the necessary private investment from Scottish capital. It has not come from that source, and that is why we are in our present state.
That is why I believe that we should not have a recess. The matters that I have mentioned, and many more, should be the subject of immediate discussion and investigation by the House.

5.19 p.m.

Mr. David Price: First, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I welcome you to the Chair. It is the first time that I have been called to speak under your chairmanship. We look forward to many years of your presiding over our affairs.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Adams) on his maiden speech. At least the hon Gentleman, among our new colleagues, will be able to go into the brief recess in the knowledge that he has jumped the first hurdle that is met by a newly elected Member. He will feel easier when he returns after the recess in the knowledge that he fully belongs in this place.
The hon. Gentleman needed no protection when it came to being non-controversial. If this were a general debate, and not a debate on the recess, even I could find—I am not a controversial figure—much in what the hon. Gentleman said at least to question if not entirely to dispute. His knowledge of shipbuilding, from having worked in that industry, and of the social services will be of benefit in our discussions, especially in Committee.
I wish to ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House how his mind is moving in terms of the proposal made in the last Parliament in relation to Departmental Select Committees. If there were a Departmental Select Committee on the affairs of the Department of Health and Social Security, I could see the hon. Gentleman playing a strong part in it. No doubt he will speak on health and social security matters within the purview of that part of devolution that already exists, the Scottish Grand Committee, into which English Members of Parliament enter with trepidation and reluctance.
I turn now to a number of points made about the immediate energy situation. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) said that energy would be very

much in the forefront of all our debates. I agreed with what the hon. Gentleman said about the long-term strategy—that we must evolve a policy on our energy needs.
If we want to change the balance of our energy supply, we are talking of a time scale of a minimum of 10 years. More realistically, the time scale is 20 years if we refer to the time it takes to build new power stations and comply with planning requirements. Our energy pattern is fixed for the immediate future. Therefore, we must consider how we make use of the facilities within the existing energy pattern.
The reply to the private notice question today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy dealt with one matter which I have raised before. I do not hesitate to raise it again. I refer to the problem of the disabled driver. I have a family interest in it. There is a degree of urgency in the matter. There is no question of motorists panicking over petrol supplies, but hon. Members have said that there is a degree of difficulty in obtaining petrol in some parts of the country.
The disabled driver is in a unique position. By definition, he or she cannot use public transport. There are local petrol shortages in advance of any question of a rationing scheme—indeed, long before the situation is serious enough for the Government to consider rationing. There is a convenient way in which to handle the difficulty.
The Government may take advantage of the orange badge system. Registered disabled drivers are given orange badges. It took a long time to get that system established by the Government. That is a convenient vehicle which already exists. No bureaucracy is needed. I propose that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House draws to the attention of my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Energy and the Minister of Transport the need for advice to be given to petrol companies, wholesalers and retailers.
In my part of the country, many garages close at weekends. Those that do not close have some form of rationing. We may buy a maximum of £2-worth or £3-worth of petrol. They should be advised that priority should be given to


motorists with the orange badge. That is simple. Without any official scheme, all retailers whom I know will accept such guidance.
I hope that in his Budget my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider the level of mobility allowances for disabled drivers, which is the other side of the proposition. It is clear that petrol will cost more, regardless of anything that the Government do about taxation. Part of the generality of the Budget is to look at social security benefits. There is a clear case for an increase in the mobility allowance. I prefer that the mobility allowance should be tax-free as it is not income in the normal sense of the word. It is a facility given to disabled people to enable them to go about their business and get to their work the same as the remainder of the community. There is a strong case for making the allowance tax-free.
Perhaps what I have said goes further than the ambit of the motion. However, I put the broad point that guidance should be given this week, or early next week, about disabled drivers. That simple, modest proposal will appeal to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I join the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Adams) on his maiden speech. My hon. Friend displayed compassion and a knowledge of social services that will stand him—and us—in good stead in the House. The hon. Member for Eastleigh has a great interest in the disabled. He will find an ally as well as a possible rival in my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley in discussions on the social services.
Having heard a number of maiden speeches, I am astonished at the resolute and assured manner in which they were made. I tremble to think what my maiden speech was like and what the present Members of Parliament would have thought of it. The high quality of the speeches we have heard should spur us to greater efforts.
I was struck forcibly by how quickly 18 days of office have dimmed the rhetoric of the hustings. It seemed that almost every Government supporter who spoke on energy questions said the opposite of what he said in the general election. In the election the Tories said "Set the people free from Government interference." Almost every Government supporter who spoke said "Please, Mr. Secretary of State for Energy, do not put up petrol prices. Please make sure that the big, bad oil companies do not treat the small, poor garages badly by refusing them supplies." That is the operation of the market. Hon. Gentlemen are saying that the Government should intervene in the crude economics of the market. The oil companies, like everyone else, want to make as quick a profit as possible, and the best profit, with the least possible inconvenience. If that means that small businesses and small garages run into difficulty, so be it. There are many hours to come when we may argue the case in greater detail. I ask Government supporters to reflect on that each time they ask the Government to intervene, as otherwise they deny the case on which they fought and won the election.
I now turn to the remarks of the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins). He referred to the problems facing the pig industry, both the producers and processors of meat. Lawson of Dyce is situated on the border of my constituency. Most of its vast work force lives in my constituency. Its management said that because of severe losses on the pigmeat side of the processing plant, 600 jobs must go. That is serious enough. Once the 600 jobs go, there is no meaningful alternative employment in the city of Aberdeen or the surrounding area. We are afraid that, when only 800 jobs are left, the on-costs—which will certainly be reduced to some extent if part of the production is lopped off, but which continue irrespective of the size of the labour force—will become so severe a penalty on the remaining part of the factory that in time a further 800 jobs will go and the factory will close completely.
I am not being alarmist—I am always wary of people who are—about threatening that there will be massive redundancies, but it is a serious problem which concerns us and which we have discussed with the company over a number of years.


Basically, the factory is in difficulty because of the disparities of the green pound and because of the difficulties with pigmeat MCAs. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), the former Secretary of State for Employment, is on the Front Bench, and he will know that we averted redundancy some time ago by the provision of temporary employment subsidy. He will know that we have averted many redundancies by this kind of intervention. The problem is that even the Government's proposals for devaluing the green pound will not come in time—if they come—to save the factory. Action is needed now to keep it going.
In the Queen's Speech it was said that the Government wanted to see farming, food producers and the marketing agencies having fair competition. But they must first exist before that fair competition can be there. I hope that the Government will make it clear that they will be prepared, by taking special national measures in respect of the pig-meat and producer industries, to keep them going, or that they will directly fund this factory by giving it money to underwrite its losses until such time as it can be put on a profitable footing.
In addition to doing that, the Government ought to be pressing the parent company to face up to its social responsibilities, because Unilever, the parent company, has made money in the North and North-East of Scotland over many years and will, I dare say, do so in the future. It has made money in the country at large. In this instance the company is saying that it is not prepared to carry any more losses. The losses amount to over £2 million in the last couple of years. But there is a social responsibility on the company to put money in, and there is a social responsibility on the Government to act. Already the 18 days of office have led the Secretary of State for Scotland to say that he is willing to intervene to try to help. If he is sincere, he must try to help, and he ought to set out his criteria for help and tell us how much help he intends to give.
I should like now to turn to another topic which has been mentioned briefly in the debate, and that is Rhodesia. In the last couple of days there have been joint discussions between Lord Carrington, the Foreign Secretary, and Secretary

of State Vance of the United States. It is quite outrageous and an absolute scandal that we do not have the Foreign Secretary in this House so that we may question him directly. The holder of such a high office, dealing with such important matters affecting the whole future not only of our own country but of many millions of people throughout the world, ought not to be in the other place. He ought to be here in this House, where he could be questioned directly. There ought to be a clear statement from the Government as to the outcome of the Carrington-Vance talks. So far, we do not know precisely what is happening or exactly what is being discussed.
Suddenly we are all rather concerned that the Government have decided to set up a resident mission in Salisbury and that they are to have a peripatetic mission to Africa. Some very strange names have been mentioned as to who might be involved in this. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) has shown himself all along to be a full-hearted supporter of Smith, ever since the date of UDI. He would not be welcomed in Africa as a moderate person with something to contribute to the solution of the problems there.
The Government appear to be moving with a softly-softly approach towards some recognition of the Muzorewa-Smith coalition. The Government ought to go very carefully indeed and think seriously, not just about recognition but about the consequences of recognition. Recognition will not solve the conflict. It will certainly not end the war. The people of Zimbabwe have fought for a number of years, with heavy losses, and they will not give the whites the opportunity to carry on governing in that country. The people of Zimbabwe will continue to fight for their rights. The Government may feel that recognition would get them off the hook with regard to their own Back Benchers and enable the Government to extricate themselves from involvement in the Rhodesian problem. If they believe that recognition would have this effect, let me warn them that they are making a very grave error indeed.
I believe that recognition would drift into the giving of advice, and that advice would drift into the giving of support.


This in turn would drift into direct military intervention. That would involve us much more directly than we have ever been involved in the past. Indeed, there is a grave and ominous precedent for what might happen. The Americans were sucked into Vietnam in precisely this kind of way. First, there was recognition. Then there were advisers sent to Vietnam, with missions of one kind and another, and finally the troops went in. Recognition would lead us directly into the war in Southern Africa of which we have all been afraid.
Already we have seen the attempts being made by South Africa and by the Smith regime to drag us in. The statement made by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) during the general election was of no help to the people of Southern Africa. The aggressiveness with which Smith has bombed and raided in Zambia and Mozambique and the news this morning that the South Africans have once again invaded Angola are precisely the kinds of things that we would have expected and, indeed, that we have forecast. This is what happens when we line up with the racist minority in Rhodesia.
There ought to be three clear statements from the Government before the recess. First, the Government ought to state that there will be no recognition. Second, the Government ought to commit themselves, despite their difficulties with their own Back Benchers, to the maintenance of sanctions against Rhodesia. Thirdly, the Government ought to state that they will not veto attempts which will be made to impose economic sanctions on South Africa.
That is a lot for the Government Benches to swallow, but I will make one confession to the House. During the general election period in 1974, I doubted very much the bona fides of the Pearce Commission which went to Rhodesia. When it returned, it reported honestly that the majority of the Rhodesian people were opposed to the proposals set out by the then Foreign Secretary, Sir Alec Douglas-Home. I believe that it was a proper test of opinion in Rhodesia. But the Africans have not been asked whether they want the new constitution; only the white minority has been asked. If the Government will

live up to their responsibilities and take the future of Southern Africa seriously, they will be making a very strong move towards peace and progress in Southern Africa. If they will think very seriously about where they are going, I hope and believe they will adopt the solutions which I have suggested to them.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I suspect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that many hon. Members would like us to move on to the discussion of Welsh affairs. Therefore, I will not detain the House for more than a minute or so.
I want to revert to the question of oil supplies and the future use of energy in this country. It would be helpful to us to have a reassurance from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that the Government are aware of the need for the conservation of energy in this country. So far, we have only just begun to skim the surface in dealing with this question. There have been various programmes of exhortation by the previous Government. Unfortunately, these have had only a very mild impact on industry.
A great deal of attention has been drawn to the use made of energy by the average motorist, but even if the most strict rationing were introduced tomorrow—and that is not necessary—it would have only the tiniest effect on the use of oil in this country. If the motor car were abolished tomorrow, it would not make the slightest difference to the future supply of oil to this country. We would still be faced with a very serious shortage. In fact, the impact on the motorist and the desire to cut back the use of petroleum products in this area of transport are only the cosmetics of conservation. Such a cutback could result only in a great deal of hardship and dislocation.
There is no escaping the fact that the prime duty of any Government in the Western world is to ensure that there is a fresh initiative, both in this country and elsewhere, to conserve the use of oil and other sources of energy in industry. Too often the conservation programmes are thought to result in the cutting back of economic growth. On the contrary, if we do not use our energy resources more efficiently in industry we shall only


hasten the day when industrial growth in the Western world is strangled.
Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend can reassure us. If he cannot do so, I hope that he can at least tell us that he will emphasise, with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, the concern shared by those of us here today about the need to launch a new initiative.
I shall not spell out the directions that I think the various initiatives should take. We must ensure that our use of energy in industry is better deployed and that it is used more economically and efficiently. In that context, I hope also that my right hon. Friend will invite the Secretary of State for Trade to look again at the forecasts of aircraft movements in this country.
We have had an interim report from the study team which suggests that there are six possible sites for a third London airport in the South-East. To digress, I hope that in order to speed up a decision on this matter the Government will come to a speedy conclusion that some of the sites suggested are palpably ludicrous and that a great deal of grief would be spared if the Government could, at an early date, indicate that they agree, so that people could rest assured that the countryside will not be desecrated.
It is most important that the Government arm themselves with up-to-date extrapolations of air traffic, in view of what we now know to be the chronic oil situation. I have a very keen interest in this matter, as the question of the further expansion of Gatwick is under review. I fully accept the value of airports to our economic well-being. They bring a great deal of prosperity to our country, and certainly to the constituency in which I live. But the over-expansion of airports such as Gatwick is bad on economic grounds and can only result in the desecration of the environment. Indeed, it is doing so.
The previous Government are guilty of procrastination on the question of a decision about a third airport. For nearly five years we have had no action, following the cancellation of Maplin. So long as we continue in this uncertain way we shall find that the lack of an airport policy will lead not only to the pollution of our environment but to the misuse of the energy that goes into that industry.
The Government have quite a problem on their hands. I believe that they should take the initiative in conservation in the aircraft industry. More specifically, they should, as quickly as they can, give clear guidance to the aviation industry on future airport developments.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. Ioan Evans: I join with those who have congratulated you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your elevation to the Chair. It is quite a transformation to be at one moment Deputy Chief Whip and then to find oneself Deputy Speaker of the House. One task is partisan and the other is one where you will, I am sure, hold office in an impartial and objective way, deferring to the procedures of the House.
It is always with mixed feelings that one approaches a motion for the House to go into recess. There is possibly an element of hypocrisy about it. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) rightly said that he did not trust the Tory Government and would hesitate before letting them get out of his sight. I share that feeling in one sense; in another sense, I shall be glad to see the back of them for a fortnight. So much has come forth from this Government so early that I believe there is already reaction to what happened on 3 May.
It seems strange that only 20 days after having a general election we are now going into recess for a fortnight. One reason why we are going into recess is the European elections, though I am not so sure that that is a good reason. It would be a good thing for the country if the Government and the Labour Party were to put their views on where we all stand on Europe. It would serve the country better if, rather than go into recess, we were to have a debate on the future policy of this country as regards our membership of the Common Market.
A great deal has already been said in this short debate about oil supplies. I hope that the Leader of the House—if I may have his attention for a moment—will, at an early date, think about having an energy debate to deal not only with the oil situation but with all our energy resources. We are in a very fortunate and favourable position as regards oil resources.
I was interested to discover that one or two hon. Members on the Government Benches have said that it is important that we should husband our oil resources and consider our future needs rather than involve ourselves elsewhere. What they did not say in this context, and what I should like to add, is that I hope we shall be concerned about the ownership of those oil resources, and that the threatened national asset-stripping that has been talked about will not mean that oil com panics—multinationals and foreign investors—will be buying the resources that a Labour Government brought into national ownership. I hope that we shall debate this subject as soon as we return after the recess.
It has been said that the Queen's Speech is almost a photostat copy of the issues on which the Conservative Party fought the general election. Undoubtedly they were not only putting forward proposals but are now endeavouring to translate them into legislation. One must be fair and say that the legislation is not yet ready and one must give them time to prepare it. It will be several weeks before the legislation will emerge. That is no reason for the House to go into recess. There is a large number of other matters besides oil which require consideration.
We had a humorous contribution from the Leader of the House last night. He is a good after-dinner speaker and no doubt we shall enjoy his humour in future debates. That is a good thing. We shall need a sense of humour in view of the way in which the Government are beginning to act on so many issues. Although the Government have put forward broad policy outlines, we have been told little about how they intend to implement those policies. We have had a number of major contributions on various aspects of the Government's policies from the Front Bench but we are still not clear about what they will do on a number of other issues. Even the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to be telling us what he will not be doing in the Budget. Before the election we were told what he was going to do. Yesterday, the Chancellor gave us a prelude almost of what he said we would get in the election. Now, owing to unforeseen circumstances, that will not be possible.
If we are looking for matters to discuss—I see that my right hon. Friend the

Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith), the former Secretary of State for Trade, is in the Chamber—there are a number of reports in the Department of Trade, such as the Lonrho report and others, relating to how private enterprise has operated in this country. Added to that large number of reports on the various bookshelves in the Department of Trade is the Keyser Ullmann report. Those are the matters that we should be debating in the House. We should not think of going into recess. We should look at these reports. The lessons we can learn from these reports are how various private speculators have stripped the assets of various companies. That will help us prevent the national asset-stripping proposed by the Government. We can learn how consumers, industry and working people have suffered because of the action of those various companies. It is important to understand the reasons for the failure of private enterprise before we bring the public sector into that category.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Evans: A Welsh debate is to follow, and the hon. Gentleman has already spoken. Other hon. Members wish to take part in this debate, and there will be other opportunities for the hon. Gentleman to intervene.
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) about Rhodesia. It is an affront to this House of Commons that it does not have a Foreign Secretary in the House. It is not as if the Conservative Party is short of foreign affairs experts. It is certainly not short of hon. Members. Of course, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) offered to do the job.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: No, he did not.

Mr. Evans: That is what we are given to understand. We had better have the facts. We understand that, if asked, the right hon. Gentleman would have been prepared to become Foreign Secretary. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is still recovering from that wound in his back. We all know about that. Leaving that aside, even if the right hon. Gentleman was not prepared to be Foreign Secretary, I am assured that there are


other Conservative Members who would. When major foreign affairs issues come before this House, it is wrong to have the Lord Privy Seal saying that he is speaking on behalf of the Foreign Secretary, who is down the corridor. That is wrong. The Government must think well and long before they abandon sanctions and recognise the new Rhodesian regime.
The Government have already had representations from the High Commissions. Apparently they are unanimous. Those who are for the Rhodesian regime might take comfort from the fact that there has been a change of Government in Canada. But in Canada they call themselves progressive Conservatives, unlike our Prime Minister, who calls herself a reactionary Conservative. We shall find that many Conservative parties in other countries would take a dim view if this Government were unilaterally to recognise the Rhodesian regime. I hope that we shall soon have a debate on this issue.
In fairness to the Labour Government when in power, it must be said that they rarely made major pronouncements during recesses. It is true that during another period there was a tendency for Governments to make all the awkward statements, which hon. Members could not question, as soon as they went into recess. I hope that we shall have an undertaking from the Leader of the House that during this recess no major political statements will be made that can wait until the House returns, so that hon. Members can question the policies that are put forward by the Government.
There is another point which needs to be looked at. The Department of Prices and Consumer Protection has been abolished, as has the Price Commission. We no longer have in the Cabinet a Minister with sole responsibility for prices and consumer protection. That Department has now been merged into the Department of Trade. Yet already, in the past 20 days, we have been getting reports of various price increases day by day. Conservative Members have said that these were in the pipeline but were kept back by the private companies. Do Conservative Members really believe that Ranks Hovis McDougall, which subscribes to the Tory Party, kept back the bread price increase until the Tories got into power? They may well be right,

because the Labour Government would have referred the matter to the Price Commission, and the company would not have been able—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What rubbish.

Mr. Evans: Prices have gone up in the private sector as well as the public sector. Conservative Members might possibly be able to say that they have been held back in the public sector.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Under Socialism we would get no bread.

Mr. Evans: Even the Post Office is now to put up prices. Therefore, hon. Members who wish to write to the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection to complain about prices now find that that Department has been abolished, and if they write to some other Department they will pay more for doing so. That is how the Tories deal with prices.
We now have no Minister with responsibility for prices and consumer protection, and that is something that I hope will be considered at an early date. We must also discuss the question of the Price Commission itself. A by-product of all this is that in the last Parliament we had a Question Time devoted entirely to prices and consumer protection. Now that all these price increases have taken place, the Secretary of State for Trade is to deal with prices and consumer protection as well. As a result, we must fight for that small opportunity to deal with these questions.
I appreciate that a Welsh debate is to follow and that a number of Welsh Members wish to raise certain matters. But there is one matter that I want to raise now, because it is linked with the earlier statement on oil supplies. This relates to the future of the coal industry. Under the previous Government a tripartite committee was set up between the Government, the Coal Board and the miners' unions in South Wales to look at the future of the coal industry. Great public investment is required. I should like to know from the Leader of the House when we shall hear of the Government's decision regarding that tripartite committee.
Already, a pit in my constituency has been threatened with closure, although


a large amount of coal exists in that pit area. We hear Conservative Members talk about rationing, and about the disabled getting priority in the petrol queue in order to get oil. As well as husbanding our oil resources, I hope that we ensure that the benefits of North Sea Oil flow into the coffers of the community.
Conservative Members talk about shareholding, but they must remember that there is such a thing as a national shareholding. The nation has a shareholding in public industries. If the Government plan to hive off the ownership of oil to foreign investors and if they fail to husband the 300 years' supply of coal, thus ensuring that pits are kept open, that must be debated as early as possible.
I hope that after the fortnight's recess we shall have answers to many of these questions. Let the Government take all their Ministers to Chequers, look at what they said to the people and realise that it is just not on. Let them then come back with a revised version of the Tory manifesto and tell the country what they intend to do in the years ahead.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I am not constitutionally averse to having a recess. I am not one of that small band of romantics who feel that a day not spent in the Palace of Westminster is a day wasted. It is, therefore, with a little guilt feeling that I find myself urging that the recess should be postponed, if not abandoned altogether. I do so because there are many matters of real urgency which must be considered by the House and on which decisions must be taken.
I certainly do not quarrel with the thesis advanced by the Government during the Queen's Speech debate that they need time to collect their thoughts and consider the situation in order to give us some sort of insight into their long-term strategy. We all await the results of that process with fascinated interest and some foreboding. But I accept that they have a right to do it.
However, there are matters which are not concerned with long-term policy. There are matters of short-term and immediate decision which affect the standard of life for the people in my constituency

and probably in every other constituency in the country. Those decisions must be taken.
The only point that I want to raise during my short contribution is the state of the shipbuilding industry. I am a Clydeside Member of Parliament. My constituency is very heavily dependent upon shipbuilding. It is the fundamental industry which underpins the employment prospects in my part of the country. I represent a seat that has a very high unemployment rate. That, perhaps, does not mark it out from many others in Scotland and in parts of the United Kingdom, but it is an area in which the problems are particularly difficult to eradicate. If there were a disaster there in terms of employment in the shipbuilding industry, we would be facing the most serious social discontents and misery, of a sort that we have not seen for very many years in industrial West-Central Scotland.
We have had a number of blows in Garscadden, Clydebank and that area west of Glasgow. The Goodyear Tyre Company and the Singer Sewing Machine Company are only two spectacular recent examples. If we were to face the same sort of problem in shipbuilding, as we fear, clearly it would be a subject for the very gravest concern, irrespective of one's party loyalties and allegiances.
We must hear from the Government what they will be doing in the next week or two to ensure that such a disaster does not overcome us and that we do not face such a crisis. In their manifesto, the Conservatives have said that they want to sell off, particularly in the shipbuilding and aerospace industries, as a sort of job lot, those parts which are profitable and can be returned to private enterprise.
I do not expect that the Leader of the House will be able to give any detailed information as to exactly how that will work, or what the criteria for the sales will be. However, I am sure that he will appreciate the genuineness of the point that this kind of prospectus, this possibility in the immediate future, is creating a great deal of uncertainty and discontent and is extremely bad for morale in the shipyards, which have only recently been brought into a homogeneous whole under the banner of British Shipbuilders. It


is a very important matter for the people who are in this situation.
In my constituency, for example, there is Yarrow's, which is an extremely successful yard, largely because it tenders for very sophisticated naval vessels. I suppose that it must be one of the possibilities for sale back to the private sector, particularly as we know that the compensation to the previous owners has not yet been paid. I suppose there is the possibility that they might be interested in re-acquiring the yard.
It is that kind of uncertainty which must be removed, not only in Yarrow's but in neighbouring yards, because if the Government sell off one of the most important naval builders they will be striking at what I understand to be one of the central strategies of British Shipbuilders—that we concentrate on the naval shipyards and find employment there for many of the men who will be displaced at other yards operated by British Shipbuilders. I hope that the Minister will give some indication in the very near future—it ought to be before the recess—of exactly what is to happen to these yards and how this operation will be worked.
Even more immediately, we have the question of the redundancy payments scheme for shipyard workers. As I understand it, the order expires on 30 June, so the matter is obviously very pressing. We ought to know the Government's intentions. Perhaps the Leader of the House will be able to say that the scheme for shipyard workers is irrelevant and is itself redundant because there will not be any job losses in British Shipbuilders and in shipbuilding engineering. If he gives me that assurance, I shall be delighted—but I shall be most surprised.
I think that we all recognise that there will be contraction. If there is to be contraction, it is vital that we know the terms under which those who have the misfortune to be displaced will receive help under the special redundancy scheme. Again, it is quite deplorable that we are leaving the House for a recess without these matters being aired and these decisions taken.
I raise, finally, a general point, but it is most important in terms of the shipbuilding industry. There is a lamentable

shortage of orders in world terms and specifically in terms of the British yards. To put it in the bluntest possible way, there are many yards on the edges of and around my constituency where there is now no work left, or virtually no work. In Govan Shipbuilders, for example, I think that the last of the Polish orders goes down the slipway next September. For many of the steel trades, work is already running out.
Such a situation is not something in which we can sit and wait for Conservative philosophy to evolve and to be nicely delineated. I want to know now what the Government plan to do in order to stop 5,500 members of the work force of that yard, many of whom live and work in and around my constituency, being put almost immediately on the dole.
I do not know whether I have been properly informed, but I am told, for example, that there is a possibility of an order for the Govan yard of a bulk carrier for the Tunisian Government. That would involve money from the intervention fund and probably further finance to bridge the gap between what the customer is prepared to pay and what we can offer from overseas aid. I know that this matter was under active negotiation under the previous Government. As I understand it, it is vital for the continuance of work in this yard.
I should like to know, before we adjourn, whether the Government are really trying to seek orders in this way, whether they are prepared to use the intervention fund, and what will be the whole attitude to the previous Government's commitment of £85 million for the intervention fund now that we have had a change of Minister.
There are all these fundamental points on which, as the representative of a shipbuilding constituency, I am totally ignorant of the Government's intentions. Frankly, when I return to my constituency—if we have this recess—I shall have to meet shop stewards and the work force and discuss their prospects with them. It will not be good for the Conservative Government, any more than it will be good for me, if I have to say "Actually, Parliament does not know what is happening. We do not know what the Conservatives intend to do about these important matters, so you will just have to


sit with all the patience you can muster, among a cloud of mounting anxiety, awaiting the pleasure of the Government."
This is not a matter of metaphysical discussion about how we organise the free market economy. We cannot wait for the Secretary of State for Industry to go on circuit, as he has promised, learning and perhaps propagating the works of Adam Smith over the months that lie ahead. It is a lot more urgent than that. It is a major crisis of the whole industrial substructure of West-Central Scotland. I am very unhappy indeed that we are not getting more information and a willingness to face up to these problems in the House.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) raised a great number of these questions in the debate on the Queen's Speech. He did so precisely, concisely and persistently—and answer came there none. That is not a situation that we can accept. I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to give me not just consolation but some definite information as to when I shall get answers to these overwhelmingly important questions for my constituency and for the whole western side of Glasgow.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. David Mudd: I should like to dovetail into the remarks made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), in that my fears as we move into the recess are very similar to his—namely, the future of British Shipbuilders redundancy payments scheme.
While the House is in recess for the Whitsun break, Falmouth docks will close, with effect from 4 June. About 170 men will be retained, however, in some hope of maintaining a form of activity. To the 170 or 200 men who will thus be engaged, it is obviously very reassuring to know that they will have jobs when the jobs of their colleagues have ended under the redundancy payments scheme, but this will be a very hollow satisfaction if the incoming Government fail to extend the scheme, with the result that those who stay on will, as a result of their loyalty and enthusiasm, find themselves worse off than those who are going under the

scheme, which ends at the end of June. Therefore, I hope very much that this evening we shall have some news of progress in this direction.
The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) said that he hoped that during the recess Government statements would not be made outside the House without first being made available to the House. I must disagree with him. The problems of Cornwall are such that if solutions should be found over the next fortnight, it is vitally important that the news should be given to the widest number of people as soon as possible, to restore confidence.
If the Department of Industry can reach agreement over the future of the Wheal Jane tin mine, which has now been out of operation for 13 months, I would welcome an announcement on that, be it during the recess, on the bank holiday, or at midnight on a Sunday night, because it is of interest to the area and to the community served that this information should be given.
I also hope that if there is any good or encouraging news of a successor company to take on Falmouth ship repair yard, such a development will be given the encouragement, action and publicity that it so rightly deserves.
Thirdly, I hope that on the eve of the Whitsun Recess the Government will urgently consider the problem of fuel supplies to the far west of Cornwall. We already suffer major distribution problems. This afternoon a local baker told me that if he cannot get fuel oil supplies through by next Wednesday he will have to lay off 18 men as he can no longer operate. In Cornwall we have a massive and sustained local demand for all forms of fuel. As we move into the holiday period, there will be greater pressure on our limited stocks from camp sites and caravans to be serviced and car and coach tanks filled.
I hope that on the issues of the Wheal Jane mine, Falmouth docks, British Shipbuilders redundancy payments and the urgency of guaranteeing essential fuel to Cornish industry, the Leader of the House will assure us that Cornwall will not be neglected during what could be a crisis recess.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Ted Graham: I gladly join in the approbation of the


maiden speeches made today and over the last few days. They augur well for the quality of the 1979 intake. I also add my congratulations to those expressed by other hon. Members to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Particularly on Fridays, in our office as Whips, we have worked closely together. I hope that I shall not harm your reputation with your former colleagues in saying that you were scrupulously fair. You never tried what I have been told are the tricks of the trade, and we had a harmonious relationship. Both sides of the House benefited from that, and I am sure that the House will benefit equally from your scrupulous fairness in the Chair today and for many years to come.
I ask the Leader of the House to bring to the attention of the Minister of Transport two urgent and vital matters to the constituents of Edmonton and Enfield. When one thinks of angry southern commuters, one thinks of Essex, Hertfordshire and Kent and rarely hears of those from Liverpool Street, on the Enfield Town line, as particularly militant. The quality of the service that they have to suffer on the Liverpool Street-Enfield Town line, particularly in the past year, has, however, been bad. Commuters were led to believe that many good things would happen, particularly from changes in the timetable last year, but they have been driven to despair by the quality of the service.
Before I am accused of raising these problems after 3 May, let me say that before that date I tried in vain to stress to the Secretary of State for Transport the poor quality of the service. Many good and articulate residents' associations in my area, particularly the Bush Hill Park ratepayers' association, have been persistent, patient and constructive in bringing to the Minister's attention necessary improvements. The greatest distress comes from the cancellation of trains rather than the quality of the rolling stock. It is bad enough to know in advance that a train is cancelled. It is worse to arrive at the station and find that it is cancelled at a moment's notice, and often the staff do not know either.
The secretary of the Bush Hill Park ratepayers' association tells me that two weeks ago, between 5 o'clock and 8 o'clock one night, there were 13 cancellations. Six of those were to Liverpool

Street and seven out of Liverpool Street, which meant that half the scheduled trains were cancelled. That is a disgrace. The commuters who board trains at Silver Street, Lower Edmonton, Bush Hill Park and Enfield Town are weary and sad. I am able to speak from practical experience. One morning last week I went to catch a train that was between 15 and 20 minutes late, and that evening the train that I went to catch from Seven Sisters was cancelled.
The Bush Hill Park ratepayers' association went to a great deal of trouble, and the top brass of British Railways Eastern Region came to a meeting that I convened in the home of one of the members. The dialogue was constructive. As many hon. Members with commuter interests will not be surprised to hear, we were told that the problem was not only one of shortages of staff but, particularly, of guards, and that the main problem is not pay but unsocial hours. Consultation with trade unions, management and commuters should find a means of recognising in 1979–1980 the needs of the family man who wants to lead a life in the community and work on the railways.
The secretary of the Bush Hill Park ratepayers' association, Mrs. Snell, wrote to the divisional manager of British Railways Eastern Region, Mr. Holmes, on 13 May. She refers to the earlier meeting and says:
At that meeting both sides were able to put forward their points of view. As far as our side was concerned we believed that you were attempting to make improvements in this particular service.
She goes on to say:
Our members are heartily sick of the poor service which you provide and are pressing for more positive action. I have now been asked to write to the new Minister of Transport, Mr. Norman Fowler, to see whether he can obtain an improvement for us. A copy of our letter is attached hereto for your information.
The letter to the new Minister contains the paragraph:
With the continual increase in fares every year, passengers' patience with B.R.'s system of industrial relations and poor service is wearing thin. It is clear that fundamental changes in management and union attitudes are required if passengers and taxpayers are to receive value for their money.
I hope that the Leader of the House will bring to the Minister's attention how fed


up are many of the people who live along that line.
I am delighted that the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) is here. Our constituents share a problem arising from the building of the M25. That road is going around the northern perimeter of London. At one time it was called Ringway 3, and then the north orbital road. It will bring immense benefit to my constituency, the South and the whole country. Every Government in the past 20 years have given the building of that road utmost priority. When it is built and comes around the northern environs of the London borough of Enfield, traffic from that road must not go straight through the boroughs of Enfield, Edmonton and Southgate. If it does, there will be an environmental disaster.
The residents' associations, the three hon. Members representing those constituencies, the London borough of Enfield council and preservation societies are united in the belief that a road called the north-south link road should have a direct link for traffic coming off the M25 to ensure that it does not use the rat-runs of eastern Enfield and Edmonton to find its way into London.
Despite the pressure of all three hon. Members, the Greater London Council, with the prime responsibility for requesting that link from the Minister, has persistently refused to do so. I ask the Leader of the House to prevail upon the Minister of Transport to respond to a request from the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) and myself to meet urgently a deputation of local representatives to see even at this late stage whether it is possible to reserve the land for or agree to a direct link.
Until that direct link is made, heavy traffic and other traffic will come off the M25 along the A10 through Enfield and Edmonton, and eventually the people in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies will be living in a nightmare. I hope that the Leader of the House will tell me before the recess that at least he will convey to the Minister of Transport these urgent, vital fears of my constituents.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I cannot lie; I would like to go on holiday,

and I am sure that it would do the country a great deal of good if the holiday were prolonged and if the proposals that were announced in the Gracious Speech were thereby delayed. In addition, I have no self-interest in rising in the debate, because I do not have a local newspaper, as it has been locked out for the past two months. Therefore, I hope that the Leader of the House will accept my sincerity in raising the two matters that I wish to raise, because I should like a specific answer to them before we go into recess.
The first matter relates to the Kiribati Bill, whose Second Reading is due to be debated tomorrow. It is impossible to table amendments until the Second Reading has taken place. If the debate ran until 10 o'clock, we could not put down unstarred amendments to be dealt with in Committee on the day we come back. As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know, although you are new to your office, the unstarred amendments may or may not be called, depending entirely upon the decision of the Chair. I hope that the Leader of the House will therefore consider whether it is right to choose the day after the recess as the Committee stage for the Bill, in which a great many hon. Members on both sides of the House are intensely interested and to which it is expected that there will be a substantial number of amendments.
The second matter is more important. It relates to the squalid section of the Conservative Party manifesto relating to the changes proposed in the law relating to immigration. The section also referred to changes in the law relating to citizenship, which would require a Bill. Will the Leader of the House say, for the sake of those who are in deepest fear of the undermining of their present status and of their relationships with their families abroad, what pattern of events is likely to unfold in the present Session in relation to those proposals?
Do the Government intend to introduce a Bill to cover all their proposals? Do they intend to produce a White Paper on their proposals in relation to citizenship? Is it intended that some part of these proposals will be dealt with only by amendment of the rules, and, if so, is it intended that those rules will be dealt with, as so much other delegated legislation is dealt with, by a one-and-a-half-hour


debate after 10 o'clock? That would be wholly unacceptable to me and to a great many of my hon. Friends. It would be equally unacceptable to many whose fears have been aroused by these proposals and by the way in which they were argued during the election campaign.
A great many people have the deepest fear that their family circumstances will be severely disadvantaged in a way which is not just a matter of jobs, houses or cutting income tax, all of which may be temporary and may be dealt with later, but in respect of alienating members of the family circle from their loved ones in this country. That goes to the depth of what the Leader of the House argued last night was the central thesis of his party, namely, the maintenance of family life. If he is to allay the fears of those whose family life is prejudiced by these proposals, will he say now what the Government propose to do?

6.25 p.m.

Mr. John Smith: I add my congratulations, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the many that have been expressed to you on your appointment, which are a sign of the widespread approval of that appointment and the good wishes that go with you in your exacting office.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Adams) on his maiden speech. It is my impression that the quality of newly elected Members on both sides of the House is very high. My hon. Friend lived up to that high standard. He comes to the House with a great deal of experience of the social services, in particular from the post of responsibility that he held as a member of the Strathclyde regional council, which has an excellent social services department. I know from his industrial experience that he will add a great deal to our debates on these and other subjects.
This type of debate allows hon. Members on both sides of the House to raise questions that are in their minds before a recess and to attempt to elicit answers from the Government, in the person of the Leader of the House, to some pressing problems that concern them. That is sometimes a vain hope, but I am sure that many of us have high expectations of the new Leader of the House and we shall expect from him clear answers to the questions that hon. Members have put.
From the Opposition Benches concern was expressed about some industrial questions that are unresolved before the House goes into recess. These arise almost directly from the way in which the Secretary of State for Industry chose to handle the debate on the Queen's Speech on Monday. The House, in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley), asked a series of pointed, detailed, highly relevant and topical questions about the state of certain industries, including the steel industry and the shipbuilding industry. The only reply that my right hon. Friend had to any of these questions was the insouciant reply that the Secretary of State for Industry would attend meetings of the National Economic Development Council—a piece of information that does not take us much further forward. These precise questions were repeated by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who has a deep constituency interest in the shipbuilding industry. With a little more hope than confidence, we put those questions again to the Leader of the House.
When can we be told about the continuation of the shipbuilding redundancy payment scheme? It cannot be said that that is not an urgent matter. The scheme expires at the end of June, and if we go into recess and come back halfway through the month there will be a period of considerable uncertainty about what will happen to the scheme.
What will happen to the intervention fund of £85 million set up by the previous Government? What will happen on the policy of overseas aid and public sector support for the provision of more work for the shipbuilding industry? The industry is in the grip of great fear as to its future following the result of the election. What will be the Government's attitude to the corporate plan of British Shipbuilders?
These are not idle questions; they are topical and urgent questions affecting the livelihoods of many thousands of people. If we go into recess, we shall be leaving with a Queen's Speech that has made vague proposals about these industries—about which there are great fears amongst those who work in them—without any answers to the questions that have been asked. I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to tell us more


about the Government's plans for industry generally.
Other questions have been raised in the speeches made during the debate, and in some the complaint has been that there had not been answers to questions put by the Opposition. I must acquit the Prime Minister of one charge in that respect. She made her intentions brutally clear about the Price Commission on the first day of the debate on the Queen's Speech. What puzzles us about that is that if the Conservative Party had such a clear mind to abolish the Price Commission—as appeared to be the case from the Prime Minister's speech—why was there no mention of it in the Queen's Speech or in the Conservative manifesto on which the election was fought?
It cannot be said that this is a matter of detail upon which the Government require to consider how they will frame the legislation or fill out the details of their policy. It was clear from the way in which the Prime Minister tackled the question in her first speech to the House as Prime Minister that she had all along intended to abolish the Price Commission. It came out quickly and clearly. Indeed, it is about the one clear answer that we have had from the Government during the past week.
That raises a question of probity. If that was the Conservative Party's intention, as we can clearly see it was, why was it not put in the election manifesto? Why did the Conservatives not say before the election as proudly and confidently as they now defend the proposal that it was their intention to abolish the Price Commission?
Those connoisseurs of elections, of whom there are many in the Chamber, who enjoyed some aspects of the recent election will perhaps have found the most entertaining a television exchange between my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and the now Minister for Consumer Affairs, who was asked repeatedly and pointedly, not only by my right hon. Friend but by a television interviewer, whether it was the Conservatives' policy to abolish the Price Commission. All that my right hon. Friend managed to elicit from her was that they would review it. Give them one day in office, and we find that the truth is

revealed and they will abolish the Price Commission.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: An efficient and speedy review.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman should reread the speech of his Prime Minister. It is clear that she will abolish the Price Commission. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman or the Leader of the House, whose sophistry in the explanation of Conservative policy has been acquired over many years, will give us another example of that sophistry today in seeking to explain how it was not possible before the election to say what would happen but as soon as it is over all is revealed.
There is another theme that was developed as much from the Conservative Benches as from the Labour Benches—the concern felt by many hon. Members about the developing energy position, and their apprehension about returning to their constituencies with some questions unresolved. I am not surprised that they feel that questions have been unresolved, because the statement by the Secretary of State for Energy was hardly weighty or enlightening on the Government's energy policy, and in particular on the problems of oil supplies. The Government will have a great responsibility over the next few weeks and months in managing and safeguarding our energy policy.
The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) raised questions about the effect of Community policy on Britain's energy resources. A slightly different tune was played, perhaps not by those hon. Members but by some of their colleagues, who persistently criticised the Labour Government for being, as they described it, truculent over certain matters within the Community. The Labour Government were clear that the control of Britain's energy supplies remained the sovereign right of the British Government and was not handed over to the Community or encompassed by the provisions of the Treaty of Rome.
One matter to which I hope the Government will pay strict attention is that the last Government fought hard throughout their period in office to prevent the Community asserting sovereignty over the


British continental shelf, which is not encompassed within the Treaty. I warn the House that if the Community obtains sovereignty over the continental shelf, whether by a court decision or by agreement of a complaisant Government, the consequences for the control of our energy policy will be very serious.
I believe that the last Government followed a very intelligent policy on our oil, securing much greater national control over the rate of depletion and the disposition of oil supplies than had ever been the case before. We inherited a situation of neglect in 1974.
I hope that the Government will pause before taking action over the British National Oil Corporation or moving to upset the participation agreements between the Corporation and the private sector oil companies that secure disposal of petroleum for this country. When we see how tight the position can be for a country that has so much oil being produced, we see the importance from a national point of view of having reasonable control over it. I hope that the Leader of the House will take account of these representations when the Cabinet discusses these matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) raised two House of Commons matters. I want to ask the Leader of the House about two others. One is the change in the rules of the House to give more opportunity for Select Committees to be established, particularly along departmental lines. The Secretary of State for Defence, when shadowing the previous Leader of the House, committed the Conservative Party to a radical programme in this respect. I hear rumblings that there has been a great deal of opposition within the Cabinet to the Government's endorsing those proposals.
Many hon. Members have signed an early-day motion on the matter, which is clearly highly topical. It would be helpful if the Leader of the House—this is his direct responsibility—could enlighten us a little more on the development of the Government's thinking. In particular, do the proposals advanced by the Conservative Party in Opposition still stand? If so, what action will be taken, and when? Will there be an early debate on what is a very important House of Commons matter?
Before we move on to the debate on Welsh affairs, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that last week, when he was for the first time answering business questions, he was asked what would be the motion for the debate. He did not tell us then that it would be a motion for the Adjournment of the House. He said:
the wishes of the Welsh Members will be taken into account."—[Official Report, 17 May 1979; Vol. 967, c. 389.]
I understand that Welsh Members responded to that generous invitation by approaching the right hon. Gentleman with a motion that he might table for the debate. It was admittedly fairly critical of the Government, but I understand that it was signed by a majority of Welsh Members, including representatives of not only the Labour Party but Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Party.
The Leader of the House therefore knew the wishes of the majority of Welsh hon. Members. Which wishes did he take into account? Did he take into account the minority of Welsh Members, who are members of his own party? That would be a strange way of protecting minority interests, particularly when they are buttressed by a sufficient majority in the House as a whole.
I shall not delay the House long, because there is a desire to move on to the debate on Welsh affairs, but I must mention one other unresolved question that was asked repeatedly throughout the debate on the Loyal Address. It concerns the Government's policy towards pensions. The question was put pointedly by my hon. Friend the former Under-Secretary of State for Trade, the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) to the Prime Minister direct, only yesterday. The question was very simple. I repeat it to the Leader of the House. Is it the Government's policy that retirement pensions shall be increased according to the increase in prices or the increase in earnings, whichever is the higher? The latter was not only the Labour Party's commitment but the practice of the Labour Government.
It is a simple question, and it could be answered simply if the Government had a clear mind upon it. I ask it again, and I give notice that it would be much wiser for it to be answered soon, because we


shall keep asking it until we receive an answer from the Government.
There are obvious deep concerns not only about energy and oil supplies but about the implications of the Government's programme for jobs, prices and pensions—the very matters that were discussed at great length during the election. It is not good enough for Ministers constantly to say "We won the last election. That proves we must be right." The House should not tolerate such answers as the Government's programme develops although we understand that they must be given some time to put detail into place.
We shall expect the Government to justify their policies on their merits and not merely to say that they happened to win the election. It will be our policy to pursue the Government relentlessly on some of these matters, whether we go away for the recess or not.
It will not be good enough for us to be given philosophical dissertations such as we had from the Secretary of State for Industry in response to some precise questions. I recently spoke to a distinguished foreign diplomat who listened to the debate on industry and employment on Monday. He said that his observation the first time he heard the House in action was that it seemed a very oddly cerebral occasion, with a philosophical debate going on. He wondered what that had to do with the Government's programme of action for the forthcoming year.
There was a great deal in that diplomat's observation, because in that debate we tended to be distracted on to philosophical issues and away from some of the practical problems which are on the Government's desk. I hope that the Leader of the House will start a tradition in ministerial replies of moving away from that and giving the House some hard-headed, practical, revealing and enlightening answers to some of the questions that have been put to him. [Interruption.] It really is not fair of Government supporters to say in advance that he will not be able to do that.
In conclusion, I extend to the Leader of the House my best personal wishes during his tenure of office. He is well liked on both sides of the House, but we know the burden that he carries of justifying the foolish policies of the Administration

of which he happens to be a member. I hope that he will make a good start and, if we decide to go into recess, that we will go a little better informed than we have been so far.

6.41 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): I must thank the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith) for his generous personal remarks. I always appreciate these courtesies. They are part of our life in the House of Commons, and they get us through difficult moments.
We have had nearly 20 hon. Members raising very important matters in the debate, and I do not pretend that I can answer them all in detail. We should be here for a very long time were I to attempt to do that. However, all the matters which have been raised will be noted in my office and they will be drawn to the attention of the Ministers concerned.
I begin by dealing with the matter raised by the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman), who castigated us for rising too soon. The same point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) and by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), who said that he would not trust the Government out of his sight. I give him a tu quoque reply and suggest that perhaps both of us should hang around the precincts of Westminster during the recess, to use the hon. Gentleman's words, sniffing each other and keeping an eye on each other.
I rather deprecate the use of the word "holiday" to describe the recess, because it is not a holiday. We merely mislead people outside this House if we pretend that it is. We need these periods to catch up on certain aspects of our work. We need this period to spend a special amount of time with our constituents. In the circumstances of the election, moreover, hon. Members are entitled to just a few days off. I also remind the House of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that because of the election the House of Commons did not have a normal Easter break. As life is so intense here, it is important that there should be periods away from the House


as well as periods here. So I tend to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Working (Mr. Onslow), who was kind enough to congratulate me on the length of the recess. I do not think that it is unreasonable. Two weeks makes sense. It is quite normal to have a two-week Whitsun Recess. In the circumstances of the election, it makes even more sense, and we have the European elections as well which will occupy many hon. Members.
This is the first time that a European Parliament will be elected. It is the first time in history that a Parliament will be elected across national boundaries. It is a very important step to democracy; it is an important step for representative government, and it carries with it important implications for the future peace and tranquility of nations. So I think that it is not unreasonable to devote a few days to seeing that there is the highest possible vote in these elections.
This debate is taking place against the background of a six-day debate on Government policy, and I suppose that we could have another six-day debate on the general issues of principle which are involved. I shall try to leave those general issues on one side and answer the specific matters that hon. Members have raised during the debate.
Earlier today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy spoke about the fuel problems that we face. To refer to a "fuel crisis" would be putting it far too high. We have some problems, and I can assure the House that although I do not feel that it is necessary to have constant statements from the Secretary of State for Energy, if the position deteriorates in any way I shall be in touch with him to make sure that the House is fully informed.
The right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North referred to two specific matters on which he wanted me to comment because they fell within the sphere of my own responsibilities. The first concerned the establishment of Select Committees in accordance with the recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure. The right hon. Gentleman told us that he had detected rumblings of disputes on this matter in the Cabinet. I can tell him that that is not so. The Cabinet has been very fully occupied with the preparation of the Gracious Speech and other matters,

as one would expect when a new Government come to power, and proposals as important and as complicated as those put forward by the Procedure Committee, which involve every Department in government, cannot be rushed through Cabinet in a matter of days. The right hon. Gentleman must know that since he was a distinguished member of a Cabinet. We need a bit more time. I am pressing ahead with energy to get the various problems straightened out, and it is my hope and expectation that before the House rises for the Summer Recess we shall have positive proposals to put before the House, when the House will have the opportunity to decide on these issues, as is its prerogative.

Mr. Michael English: I make my intervention in no carping spirit because I believe that the right hon. Gentleman's heart is in the right place. However "before the Summer Recess" is a very long time for the House to reach a decision. We accept that it takes a long time to set up Committees. It is not so acceptable to say that it takes a long time to have one day's debate so that the House may decide what sort of Committees it wants set up.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, and I know that I shall be harried and pursued by him until we have a debate, so that it is in my interests as well as everyone else's to have a debate as soon as possible.
The second specific matter referred to by the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North related to the Welsh debate which follows this one. I said, when I was asked about the motion on which the debate would hinge, that I would take into account the wishes of hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies whilst trying, as I hope I always will, to be as helpful as possible to Back Bench Members. However, when I consulted the precedents and considered the motion which had been presented by the Welsh Members, I found, unfortunately, that all the precedents going right back to 1946 were for debates on this topic being taken on the Adjournment. I felt that I was bound by the precedents unless some particularly good reason could be shown for departing from them. That is the history of the matter. I would now like to turn—

Mr. Coleman: rose

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have to reply to 20 hon. Members—

Mr. Coleman: I asked the question. Why did the right hon. Gentleman not give me this reply on Thursday? The precedents were there then. Why did he not say this at the time?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The precedents were certainly there. But I had not gone back through all the precedents for over 20 years. When I did so, I found, unfortunately, that the precedents were against changing the course of action. I was trying to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman. There is nothing more in the matter than that. Perhaps it was a mistake to try to be helpful. Perhaps it lands one in more difficulties than if one is obstructive from the beginning. Anyhow, that is the truth of the matter.
The hon. Member for Neath was concerned about the situation in Wales. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that the level of unemployment in Wales is unacceptably high. While the level has declined slightly over recent months, it is still very much higher than when we were last in office. One of our prime objectives is to secure a significant reduction from the present levels. I am sure that the Welsh Development Agency has an important part to play in that task.
The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) was concerned about the unemployment situation in London. It is, indeed, an extremely serious problem. The hon. Gentleman did not relate the problem to the problems of other cities. It is important to stress that, however serious are the problems in London, they are part of the general problem of the inner areas of our cities. We intend to concentrate on improving matters. We need carefully to examine whether the existing policies being pursued are right and likely to provide lasting solutions. In considering the way forward, we shall consult the local authorities that have been most closely involved.
The hon. Member for Tooting also had words to say about the shortcomings of London Transport. The Government are considering the Greater London Council's proposals for further extensions of the Jubilee Line beyond Charing Cross, both

in terms of the public expenditure involved and the likely benefits to passengers and the docklands. The Government's position on the proposals will be made clear when the House considers the London Transport Bill and the GLC Money Bill.
The hon. Member for Tooting also raised the question of roads. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is conscious of the general concern in London and elsewhere, particularly over the effect of heavy lorries on the environment. My right hon. Friend announced earlier this week that he had decided to go ahead with an independent inquiry into heavy lorries and the environment with the wide terms of reference proposed by his predecessor shortly before the general election. I am sure that my right hon. Friend's announcement will meet with general support in the House and outside.
I was interested in the suggestion that more use should be made of the Thames for transport. That is a very valuable suggestion.
One suggestion with which I cannot agree is that we should have a Minister for London. I am not sure that multiplication of Ministers with titles of one kind or another is helpful. Too often, it raises expectations which cannot be fulfilled. The problems of London, as I have tried to indicate, are the problems of many other cities and should be dealt with in that context. I do not think, therefore, that it would be appropriate to have such a Minister. I do not believe that we want a question day devoted solely to London. London Members are well able to put their points on the days that are allotted to particular Ministers.
I turn to the important points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West. He was concerned about Rhodesia, the question of sanctions and the policy of the Government. The Government have made clear to the House, in speeches by my right hon. Friends on 15 May and 18 May, our approach to this extremely difficult question. The Government's objective is to build on the change that has taken place in that country to achieve a return to legality in conditions which secure the widest possible international recognition. To that end, we have already established


contact with Bishop Muzorewa. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has had talks with Mr. Vance. We shall be holding early consultations with our friends and partners in the Nine and in the Commonwealth. My right hon. Friends the Lord Privy Seal and others will be reporting to the House in due course on the outcome of these consultations. I hope that this answers not only the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West but also the point on Rhodesia raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes).
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West passed on to the subject of pigs. Again, in those queries, he was accompanied by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is well aware of the difficult competitive situation facing our pigment industry arising from the unfair system of monetary compensatory amounts in this sector. I am sure that in the forthcoming discussions in Brussels he will be seeking to improve the position of our industry.
The third point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West related to petrol supplies in rural areas. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy told the House only this afternoon, there is a serious world oil shortage. Consumers in the United Kingdom, like those elsewhere, will have to reduce their demand and oil companies are allocating their supplies equitably according to their own supply situation.
I turn now to the question raised by the hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins) on the question of providing facilities for Members of the European Parliament. The difficulty, as he pointed out, is the limitation on our facilities here. In my present position, I recognise that we face considerable difficulties in seeing that Members of this Parliament are adequately catered for. I cannot therefore hold out much hope in this regard, much as I believe it is right in principle that we should have close relations with the European Parliament. I shall look at the situation and do anything I can to help in the matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) also referred to the fuel shortage. I shall pass on his observations to my right hon. Friend the

Secretary of State for Energy. He asked to whom questions should be addressed on these matters. Should they go to the Secretary of State for Energy or to the Ministers responsible? In my view, they should be addressed first to the Minister responsible for the particular sector where they apply, such as agriculture, and not to the Secretary of State for Energy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton also raised the question of the effect of low viscosity of oil on fuel consumption. We are aware, of course, that low viscosity, in some cases, can lead to fuel savings. Unfortunately, the use of these oils is not suitable for every type of engine. We are looking into the matter, and, at our request, the Property Services Agency is carrying out trials to assess their effectiveness.
I turn now to the questions posed by the hon. Member for Fife, Central. First, I shall deal with the point he made about the future of the coal industry. The Government believe that a competitive and efficient coal industry will have an important role to play in meeting the country's future demand for energy. A major investment programme is in progress. Under the previous Administration a review of strategy for the coal industry and of its finances was put in hand. The Government will be considering the results of that review very shortly.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central also asked about increasing old-age pensions. Despite the flattering words addressed to me by the hon. Gentleman, I cannot be expected to answer that question in the terms in which he presented it in the course of an Adjournment debate. Details of the new pension and other social security benefit rates are usually announced in April—at the time of the Budget, of course—and they come into operation in November. I realise that the general election cut across the normal timetable, though the Labour Government, just before the election, gave a broad indication of the kind of pension levels they envisaged for November. The Prime Minister, then in Opposition, said that a Conservative Administration would match those amounts.
During the election we made clear that, as previous Conservative Administrations have done, we intended to show concern for the old, the sick and the disabled—all those who are most vulnerable


in our community. They can, of course, be helped most of all by strengthening the economy and by the control of inflation. I cannot go further than that in answering the hon. Member for Fife, Central at this point, but I feel sure that he will raise it with the Secretary of State for Social Services or with the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the appropriate time.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I must press on, because there are many points that I want to answer.
I turn now to the point about oil stocks made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell). The main concern is that oil stocks are at present low and need to be rebuilt for next winter, subject to the need not to aggravate the current supply shortfall. That is of common concern both to the Government and to the oil companies.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) raised the important question of the use of the Welsh language in schools. Our Welsh manifesto unequivocally stated:
We shall continue to give active Government support to the maintenance of the Welsh language as a living tongue.
That comment was reiterated in the Gracious Speech last week. In that context, we are giving consideration to a specific grant towards the cost of bilingual education in Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be looking very carefully, but certainly most urgently, into that matter.
I can confirm that the Government intend to implement the Pneumonoconiosis etc. (Workers Compensation) Act which will come into force on 4 July. The necessary regulations will be laid as soon as possible, and the first payments under the Act should be made in the early autumn.
We shall make an early start on broadcasting on the fourth channel in Wales in the Welsh language. I hope that I have answered the important points made by the hon. Member for Caernarvon.
I turn now to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield. The first related to the green

pound. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is taking stock of the overall position of farming. However, we have made it clear that we aim to devalue the green pound—but in the normal life of a Parliament—to a point which will enable our producers to compete on level terms with those in the rest of the Community. We want to provide conditions in which our efficient farming industry can compete on fair terms and make the best possible contribution to the economy as a whole.
I noted with sympathy my hon. Friend's remarks about Iran and the Shah. I welcome the return of Iranian oil exports, the cessation of which badly affected the international oil market. We welcome, too, the decision by the National Iranian Oil Company to permit all major oil companies to participate in this trade.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Adams) on making his maiden speech in this somewhat unlikely setting. I hope that we shall hear him again in our debates. The hon. Gentleman was concerned about public policy. The Government have made clear their intention to reduce the public expenditure plans that they inherited. That is not for any masochistic reasons but because it is essential to allow the size of the wealth-creating sector of the economy to increase.
The hon. Member for Paisley, along with other hon. Members, referred to shipbuilding. The Government are well aware that the shipbuilding industry is in the grip of an unprecedented recession. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry is actively considering the situation and British Shipbuilders' corporate plan. He has already seen the chairman and chief executive of British Shipbuilders. That shows the importance that he attaches to the problem and the urgency with which he is tackling it.
I refer my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price), who raised the question of Departmental Select Committees, to the answer that I have already given with regard to disabled drivers. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will have sympathy with what my hon. Friend said, but I cannot anticipate what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer may or may not do in his Budget to help


with the mobility allowance. I noted with interest what my hon. Friend suggested about priority being given to disabled drivers who display the orange badge. We shall look into that matter to see whether any helpful advice can be given to companies.
I turn now to the contribution by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North. I have already dealt with the point that he made about pigs. Therefore, I refer now to the closure of Lawsons of Dyce. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is aware of the serious economic consequences for the workers at Dyce and for farmers in the North-East of Scotland as a result of Unilever's decision to close that factory, which is also concerned with pigs. The company has been trading at a substantial loss for several years, and it has identified the pig slaughtering line as the main loss-maker. The Government would wish to become financially involved only if there was a real possibility of developing a viable and profitable operation. My right hon. Friend has indicated that he will continue to offer every possible assistance towards keeping the jobs and facilities which are so important to the future prosperity of the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Johnson Smith) asked about airports policy. Bearing in mind the continuing growth in demand and the pressure on Heathrow airport, the Government's immediate objective will be to ensure that Gatwick airport assumes a greater role in handling air traffic in the London area. The Government are well aware that, on current forecasts, even with the developments envisaged by the British Airports Authority at Heathrow and Gatwick, a third major London airport is likely to be required by the late 1980s.
The Government are determined to deal with this problem without delay and have decided that the work of the study group on South-East airports, which is considering the matter, should be completed so as to enable the options to be assessed and a decision reached in 1980. There has been a preliminary publication in which six sites were mentioned, which must all be considered on their merits. Perhaps I may add a personal note here since some of the sites are near my constituency. I hope that the site chosen will be as far away from my constituency as

possible, but that is not, I regret to say, a statement of Government policy, only of my own personal aspirations.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North complained that the Foreign Secretary was a Member of the Upper House. I remind him that this is a bicameral legislature, and that it is totally in accordance with custom that Ministers should serve in both Houses. It is essential by law that that should be so. Quite apart from the nineteenth century precedents, there is a recent precedent for the Foreign Secretary serving in the Upper House. In view of the great burden that rests upon the Foreign Secretary in terms of telegrams, communications and despatches of one kind and another, there is an argument for what we have done, provided that foreign affairs are adequately represented in the House of Commons. I can think of no one who is better equipped to speak about foreign affairs for the Government in this House than my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal.
The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) wanted an energy debate. We can certainly think about that. He also questioned whether it was desirable for major political statements on matters of importance to be made during the recess. He said that such statements should be made to the House. I take the view that in a parliamentary democracy major statements of policy should be made to the House of Commons first. Holding that view as strongly as I do, I shall certainly be quick to take action if I think that the prerogatives of this House are being infringed in any way. I shall certainly draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the essential importance of putting the House of Commons first—even, dare I say it, before the press. There is a Press Gallery here—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Not today.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I agree that it is not exactly bulging to overflowing, but nevertheless the facilities are there, and account should be taken of that by my right hon. Friends when they have policy statements to make.
I was concerned at the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) about the docks in his constituency. I know that he is indefatigable in protecting the


interests of that part of Cornwall. I also note his remarks about the Wheal Jane tin mine. I am aware of concern on both sides of the House over the uncertainty surrounding the future of the mine. The Department of Industry has been meeting the cost of pumping water from the mine to prevent flooding while negotiations are in progress about its future. I understand that an application for assistance from the Rio Tinto-Zinc Corporation is currently being considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. While details are, of course, confidential, I can assure my hon. Friend that a decision will be taken as soon as possible.
I welcome the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) on his return from exile in the Whips Office, and I hope that he will make up for the years of enforced silence by frequent contributions to our debates. I sympathise with his comments about commuters. I represent a constituency in which there are many commuters. I shall take up with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport the matters that the hon. Member has raised. I appreciate his desire that the Minister should receive a deputation to discuss the road in Enfield and Edmonton to which the hon. Member referred. I certainly hope that the hon. Member's request will be acceded to, but I cannot make other people's decisions for them. I can merely draw the attention of the Minister to the importance that the hon. Member attaches to the issue—and that is a concern that I share.
The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) raised an important procedural issue about the Kiribati Bill and the important question of immigration. On the first, the hon. Member is not quite right in his comments about starred amendments. Hon. Members may table amendments on Thursday after Second Reading and on Friday, and those amendments will not be starred. Amendments that

are tabled during the recess will be starred on 11 June. In making his selection of amendments, I am sure that the Chairman—I stress, of course, that this is entirely a prerogative for him—will take into account the difficult circumstances which mean that we have to push the Bill through the House as quickly as possible, in view of the approaching independence day, if we are not to be faced with a difficult situation. We have allotted two days to the debate, and I hope that that will give hon. Members who are concerned about the situation there a full opportunity of raising their points.
The hon. Member for York raised an important question about immigration, and I apologise that I cannot give him a detailed reply. The reason is that the work is still continuing on those rules. However, I associate myself with what he said, that whatever these rules may say it is essential that they should be framed bearing in mind that it is always human beings who are involved, and that they should therefore be applied with sensitivity and discretion, as well as with firmness.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for York for his work at the Home Office. I have reason to know how he helped me personally with a difficult constituency problem. I have the utmost confidence that the tradition of fairness tempered with humanity which on the whole has characterised holders of the high office of Home Secretary will be continued under the role of the present incumbent.
I have done my best in this rather complicated debate to answer the points raised by hon. Members. I dare say that I have not satisfied them all, but I have done what I can in the limited time available to me.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House at its rising on Friday do adjourn till Monday 11 June.

WELSH AFFAIRS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Berry.]

7.17 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): At the outset I should like to thank all those from all parties, and especially my predecessor as Secretary of State, for their expressions of good will to myself and my colleagues on the Government Bench as we undertake our responsibilities. My hon. Friends the Under-Secretaries are being received by Her Majesty this evening but will be in the House very shortly.
I should like to welcome the newcomers to our Welsh debates and those who have returned after an absence. I hope that I shall be allowed to offer a special welcome to my hon. Friends the Members for Anglesey (Mr. Best), Montgomery (Mr. Williams) and Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Hooson), whose victories represent the changing tide of opinion in Wales.
My hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey especially will, I think, be conscious that he follows in the footsteps of an outstanding parliamentarian, respected in all parts of this House, but by the manner of his own great victory and the modesty with which he received it he has already indicated that he has a valuable contribution to make in his own right. I am also very pleased to see in his place my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), who, if challenged as to his credentials to take part in our discussions, may, I suspect, be tempted to reply in his native Welsh.
This is the first Welsh day debate that we have had on the Floor of the House of Commons for two and a half years. The fact that we are holding it so early in the life of the new Parliament is a symbol of our intention to fulfil our manifesto commitment to improve the parliamentary arrangements for the supervision of government in Wales.
Despite our repeated protests, the last Government abandoned the long-established practice of holding these debates. They failed to give Welsh Members the opportunity in the Chamber to discuss the issues that they really wished to discuss

and that the Welsh people wished them to discuss. Instead, they occupied the time of the House of Commons in considering proposals for devolution which, when they had the opportunity, the Welsh people dismissed with derision.
Seldom in our history has any Administration so misjudged the mood and desires of the people whom they were elected to represent and to serve. The elephant that the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) was finally forced to recognise was seen trampling around Wales, visible and audible to most of us for a decade or more.
I now turn to consider the way in which we should proceed in the light of that referendum decision. Of course, we are committed to the repeal of the Wales Act, and the House will be given an early opportunity to debate the draft order for repeal, but in the aftermath of the referendum we are all, I think, entitled and perhaps wise to pause and take stock. I want to spell out the principles on which I am basing my thinking.
I identify three broad strands. First, I take the relationship of the central Government with local government. Here I am anxious to improve the machinery for consultation, and I am determined that responsibility and decision making should rest clearly, as far as is practically possible, close to the people.
I believe that there has been too much interference by the Welsh Office with the day-to-day management of local authorities and, indeed, with other bodies that have been given responsibility for executive action, such as area health authorities. I have already given instructions that will very substantially reduce the number of circulars issued, the scale of interference and the part played by Welsh Office Ministers.
The second strand which I identify is the one spelt out with clarity in our Welsh manifesto—the desire to improve parliamentary scrutiny over the operation of government and its institutions. I am determined to press on along that line, though it may well make my task and that of my Department more difficult. This debate today is an earnest of our intentions. We shall also be holding some additional meetings of the Welsh Grand Committee to debate the annual reports of


the nominated bodies, and we shall be giving Parliament the opportunity to consider proposals for the setting up of a Welsh Select Committee.

Mr. Ifor Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Welsh Grand Committee has the potential for far more effective use, including, for example, consideration of Welsh Estimates and many other matters?

Mr. Edwards: I shall welcome suggestions in all these areas.
The third area that I identify is that of consultation. My predecessor will be only too well aware of the very large number of organisations and individuals anxious and, indeed, entitled to proffer advice. That advice is valuable, and I shall continue to meet frequently with appropriate organisations. I have already met representatives of the Wales TUC and the CBI and made clear that my door would be open to them.
But there is a need, I think, to reexamine the more formal mechanisms for consultation and advice and, in particular, to reconsider the role of the Welsh Council. I believe that Wales—and, indeed, the House—owes a great debt to the Council for much hard work over many years. It has played a most valuable part in contributing to the discussion of economic and social policy in Wales during the period that decision making on Welsh affairs has been shifting from Whitehall to Cardiff. We are all especially grateful to Sir Melvyn Rosser and his colleagues for continuing this work at a time when inevitably the Council's future was uncertain in the context of the devolution debate.
Both the Wales TUC and the CBI have views on these issues, and I shall consider them carefully. I should also, as I have just said, welcome suggestions from local authorities, right hon. and hon. Members, and others, whether they are advanced in the course of this debate or subsequently.
The Welsh Council has done valuable work in the past, but, for reasons which we all know, it has passed through a period of inactivity. It is time for its future role or that of any successor body to be clearly defined.
In our Welsh manifesto we told the people of Wales that we should come

into a bleak inheritance, and that is precisely what we have found. The Chancellor of the Exchequer outlined yesterday the overall economic situation: manufacturing output last year 4 per cent. down on 1973; productivity in manufacturing industry up by only a miserable ½ per cent. a year over the same period; high interest rates based on excessive borrowing penalising industry; overseas debts of over £20 billion; retail prices rising sharply, and, of course, those price rises coming on top of what has gone before, the worst inflation of any industrial country except Italy; living standards only prevented from sharp falls by North Sea oil; and the balance of payments, despite the forecasts of the previous Chancellor and despite the massive £3,500 million contribution of North Sea oil, barely in balance.
Perhaps most serious was a prospect of economic growth that could not possibly have sustained the expenditure planned by the previous Government.
When, on the Sunday after the election, I opened my brief for the first time I found that I had inherited massive problems, economic and social. I shall describe some of them. Others, including education, I shall leave to my hon. Friend should he catch the eye of the Chair later this evening.
The facts of the unemployment situation were, of course, known to me, but the prospects appear even more gloomy than I had feared. Unemployment had risen from 38,000 when we left office to 101,000 last summer, and even today at 83,000 it stands at more than three times what it was in the mid-1960s, and about one-third higher than for the United Kingdom as a whole. The ratio between unemployment in Wales and the rest of Great Britain has been worsening. Two years ago the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was 1·29 times the Great Britain average; it is now 1·41 times.
The number of school leavers unable to find work has risen alarmingly, and, although the majority of the 16,000 school leavers who were out of work last summer have found jobs, the fact is that even in March, the traditional low point of the year, the number of school leavers seeking work was about four and a half times that of 1975.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Do not those figures argue the case for


a strong and advancing youth opportunities programme? How will those school leavers be assisted if the funds available for that programme are substantially cut back?

Mr. Edwards: I shall say something in a moment about the economic policies that I believe are needed, but first I should point out that even more depressing than the harsh facts which I have just retailed was the discovery that the underlying trend in Wales is considered to be still unfavourable. Admittedly, estimates and projections in this field are notably unreliable, but I certainly did not think it cheering to find that on present trends and without changes of policy Welsh unemployment levels could be expected to increase remorselessly, with more and more people coming on to the labour market.
Too much significance should not be placed on one factor, and, of course, there will be changes of policy, but these depressing and alarming indications were confirmed by my talks last week with the CBI, which, despite a temporarily more cheerful business intentions survey, foresaw a rising level of unemployment again next autumn.
In reality, the increase will inevitably come sooner, because the gloomy legacy that I have been describing is what this year's school leavers, about 41,500 of them, will have to contend with. I fear that as a result the summer and autumn unemployment figures for Wales will once again show a sharp upturn. It will take longer than a few months for the measures which we shall introduce to produce an improvement.
This inheritance and the short-term problems it poses have to be set against a pattern of major structural change, demanding replacement jobs as the historic industries decline. We have seen new industrial development, and this has been welcome, but it simply has not been fast enough to keep pace with the jobs lost or the increase in the numbers seeking work. Hon. Members are probably aware that the labour force is expected to grow by over 110,000 by 1986.
In steel we witnessed a substantial downturn in employment with closures at East Moors and Ebbw Vale alone amounting to a total of over 4,900. Those involved in the industry will know that

the British Steel Corporation is planning a further overall reduction of manpower in the next year or so as part of its policy to reduce employment costs. The Corporation has for this year indicated to the unions a requirement to reduce manpower by around 3,000. Given the need to become fully competitive, the Corporation considers that this process is likely to continue.
The Corporation has, of course, shown its faith in the industry in Wales by substantial investments for the future—the coatings complex at Shotton, officially opened last week, and the continuous casting scheme involving about £90 million announced for Port Talbot earlier this year. The hopes for the future that these sizeable investments represent must be tempered by a concern for steel-making as a whole, at a time when in Great Britain, as in other steel-making countries, steel-making capacity outstrips demand.

Mr. Roy Hughes: I appreciate the Secretary of State's concern about the future of the steel industry. Is he aware that there is concern among steel workers, especially bearing in mind the threats that have been made against some of our publicly owned industries by the Government? I noted that on 19th January 1977 the Secretary of State voted in support of a Bill to denationalise the steel industry. Will he and his colleagues be consistent? I noted that in the vote to which I have referred the right hon. Gentleman was supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Industry. The right hon. Gentleman should be aware that those in the industry are concerned.

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman knows that we put forward no proposals in our manifesto to denationalise the steel industry as a whole. We are concerned, as I hope are all hon. Members on both sides of the House, to have a strong and viable industry that will be able to withstand the difficult conditions in which it is operating.
The coal industry provides employment for about 28,600 in Wales. Since 1974, we need to remind ourselves, about 2,600 jobs have been lost, including the closure of seven pits. It is against that background that we must approach the


report of the tripartite sub-committee set up by the previous Administration—a report published only a few weeks before the general election.
The report merits the most careful study and we must allow ample time to set it in perspective in terms of both the national economy and energy requirements in the future and the implications for those areas in Wales still dependent to such a great extent on employment in coal mining. The report, which was agreed by the industry, the unions and the previous Administration, makes for pessimistic reading in parts, certainly as regards job prospects in some areas even at the levels of Exchequer support implied.

Mr. Ioan Evans: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the report of the tripartitie sub-committee gave hope that there would be investment forthcoming from the Government. We have heard in the past few days of the closure of the Deep Dyffryn pit, in Mountain Ash, in my constituency. Another more important matter raised in the report is financial support for the Phurnacite plant. Will the right hon. Gentleman give urgent consideration to that? Will he give sympathetic consideration to providing capital to invest in the industry?

Mr. Edwards: Clearly, coal has an important role to play in energy requirements in future, and it is in that spirit that we are giving urgent consideration to the recommendations contained in the report. I have already arranged with the Minister of State who is responsible to pay an early visit to the South Wales coalfield to discuss these matters. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Deep Dyffryn mine has been closed under the normal closure procedures within the industry. In that sense the Government have not intervened any more than previous Administrations. The Phurnacite plant, which has environmental problems, is referred to in detail in the report. That is a matter to which we shall be giving urgent and serious consideration.
I refer briefly to North-West Wales. There is the problem that will arise in 1981–82 when work on the Dinorwic pumped storage scheme is expected to be completed. Welcome as this massive constructional project has been, it will provide

only about 100 permanent jobs. A high proportion of the 2,400 men now employed on the project are local men and they will be seeking alternative work. I assure hon. Members representing that part of Wales that we shall be considering the report of the conference that considered these matters. In deciding what action may be taken, we shall consider the report carefully.
There has, of course, been very welcome news for North Wales today with the announcement by Hotpoint that it is to invest £18 million in an expansion at Rhyl which could eventually provide 900 jobs. I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House will join me in wishing this project well.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will be rapid progress with the road schemes serving North Wales, especially the A5 and the A55, as that is essential if we are to get the jobs to replace those that have been lost elsewhere?

Mr. Edwards: I shall talk about roads later, and I shall give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.
I am in the hands of the House, but this is a brief debate and if I give way to every hon. Member who wishes to intervene that may curtail those who want to make a speech. It may be helpful to the House if I do not give way quite so often and I allow my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to reply at the end of the debate.
There is a clear and paramount need for more jobs. In recent years we have heard a great deal about the activities of the Welsh Development Agency, about the increase in the number of inquiries and visits by industrialists looking for sites and premises in Wales and about the greater numbers and better quality of projects for which support was being sought under section 7 of the Industry Act. And, of course, all this was true.
However, we must look at these indicators against the background of our problems. Take advance factories as an example. The 100 formal allocations promised only just over 5,000 jobs—and those jobs would build up over a period of some years. I do not deny the importance of 5,000 jobs, but at that


rate it would take us eight years merely to halve the number currently unemployed in Wales, without taking into account the need to replace jobs that will continue to be lost in the older industries and to provide jobs for the huge increase in prospect in the number of people in the working age group.
Advance factories and the other panoply of direct handouts to industry in the regions provide only part of the answer to the needs of those regions. My predecessor said time and time again that the economic fortunes of Wales are dependent on those of the United Kingdom as a whole—indeed, also on international considerations. I agree with him. It is for that reason that as its first priority the Government will put forward measures to revive the economy, stimulate enterprise and job creation and encourage small firms. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will have that as his central objective.
In particular we must find ways of consolidating the contribution which small businesses make to our economic prosperity. After all, in 1976—the most recent year for which detailed information is available—nearly 134,000 were employed in firms of fewer than 10 workers or, taking a larger definition, over half the total employees in employment were in firms employing fewer than 200 people.
We have the example of the United States, given yesterday by the Chancellor, to encourage us where two-thirds of new firms and new jobs come from those employing fewer than 20 people and as many as four-fifths come from firms less than five years old. The role of small firms will be central to our strategy.
At the same time we recognise that there will be a continuing need for an effective regional policy to reduce the disparity between the richer and the less prosperous regions of the United Kingdom. We recognise the need for continuity and confidence and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry made clear on Monday, we wish to avoid sudden, disruptive changes of the context within which industry bases its decisions.
While, as I have stated, we propose vigorous action to change the economic climate, I have also made it clear that

when I come to consider the institutions of government in Wales I will be pragmatic and undramatic in my approach. I do not propose change for change's sake. If institutions are working we will retain them. If, in the light of experience, they need modification, we shall modify them. It may be some comfort to the Opposition that though I think there is much that requires doing, I am not one of those who believes that there is virtue to be gained simply by destroying what one's predecessors have created. I am happy to use any institution handed down to me. We have made it clear that we will retain the WDA and the DBRW, though in our manifesto we said that we wished to see safeguards over their powers to buy into profitable firms and to ensure that the agencies will not hold equity shareholdings in individual firms on a permanent basis. We will see that those safeguards are introduced.
We have the same approach to the work of the Development Board for Rural Wales in its task of ensuring a sensitive and planned development of industry in existing towns and settlements in Mid-Wales. We will seek to do all we can to develop further a sound economic and employment base in the rural areas of Wales. I have no doubt that in this the Board will have an effective contribution to make.
Turning to agriculture, we made clear in our manifesto our very great concern about the state of this vital industry which has suffered from the effects of the last Government's policies, particularly from the penal tax structure which they operated. It is this Government's firm intention to ensure that the industry is on a sound and healthy footing, and we shall be pursuing our negotiations with our EEC partners with that aim very clearly in mind.
With regard to the immediate negotiations on CAP prices, we of course share the Commission's anxiety to attack the Community's structural surpluses: that is why we shall continue to support the Commission's proposals for a price freeze. But the elimination of surpluses and waste must not be achieved by protecting inefficient Continental producers at the expense of this country's efficient industry. Therefore, we shall seek to ensure that the Commission's proposals are considerably modified, so that they do not


discriminate against our producers, and this applies particularly to the milk industry. Welsh farmers can thus be reassured that this Government are well aware of their anxieties in this connection and will be doing everything possible to safeguard their interests.
We also made it clear in our manifesto that we intended to do something to help those who live and farm in our upland areas, and in this I of course include the marginal land areas. When in Opposition, we constantly prodded the Government to tackle these problem areas so as to alleviate the difficulties faced by many of those who farm them—all to very little avail. I very much regret that the previous Government did not act sooner in setting up the inquiry into marginal land. I have not yet had time to consider in detail how we shall move forward, but I can assure the House that I will be giving it my attention as soon as possible. And in considering the uplands we shall not overlook the need further to develop the forestry of Wales.
The farmers' unions are a very important force in our agriculture industry in Wales and I am sure hon. Members on both sides will share my regret that the NFU in Wales and the FUW have not been able to reach agreement on the integration of their efforts. But I am glad to note their intention of working together in the best interests of agriculture in Wales. I need hardly add that the Welsh Office will continue to work closely with them. Certainly there will be no attempt by me to bully them about these arrangements.
I want to say a word about the Welsh fishing industry. I am all too well aware of the dreadful decline—indeed, almost disappearance—of the industry in Wales over the past few years. After all, the major fishing port in decline is in my own constituency. I know that there are new projects and others are being looked at—developments and initiatives which need to be encouraged. Much remains to be done, because there is little doubt in my mind that the traditional fishing ports of Wales, properly encouraged and guided, could become viable again, and it is my intention to see that this industry will receive every help that I reasonably and properly can give it.
I turn now to the Health Service, with which I couple the personal social services.

Here, too, the previous Administration left behind a host of problems. It was elected on the basis of a manifesto promise that it would revise and expand the Health Service. But what has happened? There has been more industrial unrest in the past five years than in all of the preceding 26 years of the Health Service. Morale has been at rock bottom. Waiting lists have lengthened dismally in many areas. Let no one pretend that industrial action has not damaged the interests of patients generally.
The stimulus which the last Conservative Administration gave to better services for the mentally handicapped has not been maintained, despite all the fine words. To some extent the basic trouble has been a much lower growth rate in health and personal social services expenditure over recent years. Contrast the average 4 per cent. growth rate in Wales during the last Conservative Government with the average of 2½ per cent. achieved since 1974. The decline had to follow from the central economic misconceptions of the Labour Administration and it will be a long hard haul to reverse it.
The fact is that health authorities have been working on a continuously tightening rein. Most authorities in Wales have had no additional growth funds for their own discretionary use over the past two or three years during a period when they have required to absorb the costs of many new Government policies and legislation without the provision of funds to meet them and when demands have been rising, mainly because of the increasing numbers of the very old. Overspending in some areas have been avoided only by the injection of funds for one year, only made available by transfers from other functions of the Welsh Office.
And now the chickens have come home to roost. The year 1979–80 will be the most difficult from a financial point of view for the Health Service in Wales since its inception. The requirement announced in February that authorities should absorb a part of pay and price increases this year is likely effectively to reduce the original growth rate for health authority current expenditure from 2 per cent. to less than 1 per cent. And the provision for 1980–81 set out in the last White Paper on public expenditure would permit a growth rate of only about ½ per cent. Over 1979–80. So let there be no


doubt where the blame for the Health Service's financial troubles lies. It rests with the previous Administration who, after five years in power, planned for the future an even lower growth rate than it achieved in the past. It was an inevitable consequence of its economic policies.
Most of the available money for the current year had already been distributed when I came into office. In the little room left to my immediate discretion—the allocation of a further £ 2 million—I have sought to offset the cash limits squeeze as fully as possible. The sum of £ 1·7 million has been shared out to this end and in the small margin left I have, as pledged in our manifesto, given further help to the two authorities long shown to be least well provided. On the capital front, I do not propose to disrupt the programme for the current financial year which my predecessor had set in train, and planning already under way for major hospital developments over the next few years is continuing.
I intend that the structure of the Health Service shall be simplified and that decisions shall be taken locally wherever possible. This will help towards better use of resources. It will no doubt be prudent for decisions on major structural changes to await the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Health Service, but I see no reason why thinking should not at least begin straight away. What I shall certainly put into practice immediately is the principle of letting the man on the job get on with it. Central intervention and interference in the responsibilities of health authorities is no way to promote more efficient services to the patient.
I turn to housing. The depressing statistics are so well known that I hardly need quote them. The 1976 house condition survey showed that 100,000, that is 10 per cent. of the total housing stock, was unfit and that 140,000, that is, nearly 14 per cent., lacked some basic amenities. The position is much worse in Wales than in England. In England the percentage of unfitness in the 1976 survey was only 5 per cent. and only some 9 per cent. of dwellings lacked basic amenities. Generally, Welsh local authorities have not been using the resources allocated to them to meet this challenge.
The Conservative Government will attack the housing problem on two fronts.

The aspiration of Welsh people is to own their own homes. Nearly 60 per cent. are owner-occupied now. I read earlier this week that, according to one survey, nearly 40 per cent. of young marrieds want to buy their council houses. I was glad last week to give permission for greater discounts to help them to do this. The last Government tried to restrict this aspiration. As a result, on 3 May the knell for them sounded on council estates throughout Wales.
The second attack is through the rehabilitation of older property, often privately owned. That will be one of our prime objectives. Two steps are necessary. Grants have to be applied to a positive programme to save houses, and individual householders have to be encouraged to undertake the work. Many authorities take no initiatives to encourage private owners to improve their houses. But a positive example is set by Newport borough council, which runs a package scheme under which it will advise householders on work that needs to be done and how best to get it carried out. I hope that the change to Labour there will leave that policy at least intact.
Housing is of crucial importance to Wales. I think that Members of all parties would agree that its condition is very unsatisfactory. We need a change of policy, and change has already started.
I want to say a word about the Land Authority for Wales. We believe that the Community Land Act 1975 as a whole has been a failure and that repeal of the Act is the right course. As to the Land Authority, we are committed in our manifesto to consulting the building industry and the local authorities in Wales about whether there is a need for a Land Authority, as an assembler of land, without some of the powers provided in the Act. I shall carry out these consultations as soon as possible and until then shall keep an open mind on the future of the Authority.

Mr. Edward Rowlands: In reference to the powers of the Land Authority, will the Secretary of State also keep an open mind in respect of those if he finds that there is a desire on the part of industry and local authorities that some form of powers such as the Land Authority at present possesses should be maintained?

Mr. Edwards: I was careful in the words that I used. I deliberately left room for consideration. But I do not think we can have a position in which powers are wholly different in Wales from what they are in the rest of the United Kingdom.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be referring to communications in the Principality should he be fortunate enough to catch your eye a little later, Mr. Speaker. For the moment, let me take up the point put to me a few moments ago. The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon has made much of his progress with the M4 and the A55, but I find that the completion dates for stages of both these vital projects are alarmingly far into the future. There is a massive programme of work to be done. I reiterate our manifesto pledge that we shall give priority to the completion of these important east-west links and other key roads.
As Conservatives we are, of course, concerned for the survival of a unique culture and language. That is why, in the past, we have done so much to support the Welsh language. In 1953 we issued recommendations about bilingualism in Welsh schools. In 1963 we set up the Hughes-Parry committee on the Welsh language and we firmly supported the legislation which was the outcome of its recommendations. We gave the first Government grants to assist the publication of books in Welsh and made the first grants to Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin. We appointed the Bowen committee on bilingual road signs and established the Welsh Language Council. A Private Member's Bill, introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas), made it possible for Welsh local authorities to give general assistance to the Royal National Eisteddfod.
Our Welsh manifesto states quite unequivocally that we shall continue to give active Government support to the maintenance of the Welsh language as a living tongue. That commitment was reiterated in the Gracious Speech from the Throne last week. It is in that context, as the Leader of the House said a few minutes ago, that we are giving consideration to the question of specific grant towards the cost of bilingual education in Wales. We raised some pertinent questions on the last Government's proposal but made it

clear, nevertheless, that we could see merit in it. It is in that spirit that I am now looking very carefully but urgently at this matter.
Television and, to a lesser extent perhaps, radio broadcasting have a major influence in the everyday life of the people of Wales. Our clear intention is to press ahead with plans for Welsh language broadcasting on the fourth channel. There is certainly every present reason to suppose that this could be achieved as quickly as the previous Administration would have been able to put their cumbersome plans into effect, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that our intentions would result in less broadcasting in Welsh.
It is our aim that on an agreed basis both broadcasting authorities should produce Welsh language programmes on the new channel. I recognise that in that situation there would have to be some means of co-ordinating the programme input of the BBC and the IBA's programme contractor in Wales.
I must emphasise, though, that we are in a new situation with regard to the fourth channel in the United Kingdom, since we propose to allocate it, subject to strict safeguards, to the IBA. Clearly there is much to discuss with and between the authorities. But these are all matters for consultation, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has the responsibility for them, is anxious to proceed with this consultation as rapidly as possible.
I have described the massive problems that I have inherited—economic stagnation, high unemployment and social decay. In the Welsh Grand Committee in June last year, the then Secretary of State said:
We have transformed the situation we inherited four years ago."—[Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee, 28 June 1978; c. 14.]
Unfortunately, he has transformed it for the worst. It is against a background of low productivity and low output that we shall have to tackle enormously difficult problems in the coal and steel industries, deal with a Health Service under strain, seek to improve our housing stock, and provide for social needs in a country undergoing major structural change.
I am conscious that I shall need widespread support and understanding. I am


also conscious of the fact that despite our political differences we are all desperately anxious to improve the lot of the Welsh people.
A letter from a former Member of this House brought that point home to me with special force. I was particularly pleased to receive a letter of congratulations and good wishes from Mr. Gwynoro Jones, the former Labour Member for Carmarthen, who reminded me of the manner in which we had co-operated together from time to time in the interests of the people of West Wales. He said that it
illustrates how politicians can work together for the good of all".
I tell the House now that I shall never be slow to co-operate with others, from whatever party they may come, and it is in that spirit that I shall seek to serve the Welsh people.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. John Morris: I join the Secretary of State for Wales in welcoming the new Members from all parts of Wales to our debate. We look forward to hearing from them and to debating with them. I also join in paying tribute to those who were Members of this House, not only from the Labour Party but from other parties. We shall miss good friends in all parts of the House who were not returned at the general election. They all served Wales well in their own way, and we shall really miss them.
I have already privately congratulated—and now do so publicly—the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Wales and his two Under-Secretaries of State on their assumption of office. Their responsibility is a heavy one. The office of the Secretary of State—set up by a Labour Government—is an honourable one. He will find it a demanding and a stimulating office, perhaps the more demanding and stimulating because one is so close—at least, I hope I was—to the people of all parts of Wales. I hope that he will enjoy his office and that he will make the most of it, because a Conservative Secretary of State is a temporary aberration, and we shall return soon to having a Labour Secretary of State.
Indeed, I think that I am the best shop steward for the Welsh Tories that they have ever had, because it is partially—I would not say wholly—as a result of

my criticism over the years that hitherto no Welsh Tory elected by the people of Wales has ever been allowed to serve in the Welsh Office. I hope that in due course those right hon. and hon. Members from Wales who have now been entrusted for the first time with posts in the Welsh Office will perhaps send me a small contribution as their shop steward over the years.
The Secretary of State said that having a debate so early in this Session was an earnest of the Government's intention to have consultation and participation. We have now just two hours left for debate. If that is an earnest of the right hon. Gentleman's intentions, he must do very much better. I hope that he will tell the Leader of the House that it is our expectation that there will be a proper Welsh day before the end of July. I find it very odd for the right hon. Gentleman to set himself on the pedestal of a Welsh debate while ensuring that the debate on the Adjournment takes place on the same day.
As I have said, if that is an earnest of the Government's intentions, it is not much. Let us compare it with the Labour Government's record. We legislated—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues did not welcome our legislation—for the Welsh Development Agency, the Land Authority and the Development Board for Rural Wales and brought in other legislation which concerned the people of Wales, such as the Wales Act. When one compares the hours devoted to Welsh affairs by the Labour Government with the two and three-quarter hours we have today, the right hon. Gentleman must do very much better.
We shall, of course, watch the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues closely. We shall criticise them where it is right so to do and we shall also support them where necessary. It is difficult, I know, for me to imagine a situation where I shall support them, but I can assure the House, looking at the matter as objectively as I can, and having had the doubtful honour of sitting on this side of the House in the past, that I shall certainly be looking very carefully at what they do.
I can give the Government one assurance, and that is that we will not be


petulant. We will not take up the parrot-like cry of the right hon. Gentleman when he used to beat his breast and screech from this side of the House and demand my resignation month after month. Indeed, the time might come—though I think it will be against the rules of the House—when I should be accused of tedious repetition if I were to do as the right hon. Gentleman used to do month after month.
I hope that we shall elevate the argument in the course of our discussions, and I look forward to the many meetings we shall have with one another. I hope that we shall not try to give nicknames to one another, as was the practice of the right hon. Gentleman. There is a better way, a more objective, distinguished and cultivated way, of conducting an argument. So we shall learn and try not to imitate the right hon. Gentleman.
I was interested in what the right hon. Gentleman had to say about local government. He said that there will be fewer circulars, less interference and less action by Welsh Office Ministers. Perhaps he could tell us—maybe put a paper in the Library—what kind of circulars, interference and actions by Welsh Office Ministers in the past seem to have interfered with local government and will no longer continue.
Local government will not be concerned with the actions of Ministers or with circulars but with the money they are to receive and what the level of the rate support grant will be. This was a question I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman can cut circulars until he is blue in the face, but if he is going to cut rate support grant, allow services to be drastically cut back and allow staggering increases in the rates, I can assure him that from my experience Welsh local government will not give him a ha'porth of thanks. That is the reality of the matter.
You, Mr. Speaker, knowing, as you do, that I come from Cardiff, will be aware of my concern regarding money. It is not circulars, actions or intervention that concern Welsh ratepayers and Welsh local government, but the amount of money they will not be getting from this Government.
Without being unduly modest, I thought that my question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a pertinent one. I asked the Chancellor what effect he anticipated his policies would have on the rates. I know he was not able to answer, but I am sure that the Secretary of State for Wales will exercise whatever pressure and influence he has with the Chancellor so that he can make it abundantly clear and beyond peradventure in the Budget on 12 June. We shall be dying to know what the effect on the rates will be.
Regarding the Welsh Council, I join the right hon. Gentleman in his kind thanks to a very old friend, Sir Melvyn Rosser, for his distinguished role and the advice that he and his council gave. The right hon. Gentleman will have been advised, I am sure, that I have also begun discussions with some of the bodies in Wales on the future of the Welsh Council. We look forward to the proposal that may be forthcoming. Before the right hon. Gentleman comes to a conclusion, he might wish to have that matter debated in the House or in the Welsh Grand Committee so that he can hear the views of hon. Members before reaching a decision.
As they have given time for this debate so early in this Session, I should have thought that the Government would have had something dramatic to say which had not been said during the general election campaign. Time after time we asked where the axe was to fall on public expenditure in Wales. From the beginning to the end of the election campaign, we did not have an answer from the right hon. Gentleman or any of his friends. I should have thought that today, they themselves having made a virtue of it and chosen this debate, at last all would have been revealed and we would have been told precisely where the axe was to fall.
The right hon. Gentleman is, I know, an expert on the pork barrel. Are we to assume, having heard the Chancellor yesterday, that Wales is to have some special place in the sun and that the public expenditure axe is not to fall on Wales? If that is so for education, housing, health, steel, coal, the Welsh Development Agency and our roads, we immediately congratulate and support the right hon. Gentleman on having won the first fight in the Cabinet to ensure that Wales is excluded from public expenditure cuts.
If that is the right assumption, we can close the debate and go home and there will be great jubilation throughout the House. However, the right hon. Gentleman has not made that clear. Therefore, I presume, he having said nothing at all about the way the Chancellor is to bring his axe down on public expenditure, that Wales will be treated in exactly the same way as England—or perhaps worse.
One of the obligations of the Secretary of State for Wales is to make quite clear where he stands regarding the statement made by the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 19 March when he was in Opposition, when he said that he wished public expenditure to return to the level of 1977–1978. If that is the object of the exercise, it would mean a very draconian cut indeed in Wales. I have totalled it up and it would come to a reduction of approximately £108 million—give or take a million or two. Agriculture, fisheries and food, £6 million; trade, industry and employment, £28 million; roads and transport, £11 million; housing, £15 million; environmental services, £16 million; education, £6 million; health and social services, £26 million. If that is the object of the exercise, the sooner we are told the better.
We tried, in the course of the election campaign, to help the Conservative Party and drew up a draft Budget which would have been less painful than the draconian steps suggested by the present Financial Secretary—a 2½ per cent. cut in the first year and 5 per cent. thereafter. Of course, we were only guessing. We still do not know. The people of Wales were only guessing, but at some stage they are entitled to be told. I thought that in choosing this debate today that was what the right hon. Gentleman was going to do.

Mr. Ian Gow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way for one moment?

Mr. Morris: Normally I would, but this is a very short debate. The hon. Gentleman knows well that I always give way, but on this occasion I will not do so, though I shall try to be as brief as I can.
If Wales has not been shielded, let us turn to the right hon. Gentleman's own particular pork barrel—the one which he persuaded the electors of Pembroke would give great help for the Cleddau bridge. Three days before the October 1974 election,

I think he was reported as saying, with all the authority of a Conservative Front Bench spokesman, that there would be no tolls if there was a Conservative Government. We want to know whether that statement is to be honoured or not.
In the Tory manifesto this time it was rather different. It said that there would be help for ratepayers because the bridge was an unfair burden which the Government inspector had recommended should be transferred from the ratepayers to the Exchequer.
It is my duty immediately to declare an interest as a ratepayer of Dyfed. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman is also a ratepayer in Dyfed. Therefore, I have a great interest in knowing at the earliest opportunity what help I shall get as a ratepayer in Dyfed, and when. We had the trumpeting of the Chancellor yesterday, and if Wales is not to be shielded generally I want to know whether Dyfed will be shielded particularly and whether we shall get a share of whatever is going. Therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman is to honour his commitment, and if the pork barrel that we are all desirous of sharing is to manifest itself, the right hon. Gentleman, in fairness to his own electors and to ratepayers generally, should tell us what the situation is and from where the money will come. Will it come from the rest of Welsh Office expenditure? Will it come from the Welsh road funds?
If that is so, there is not much hope for the aims and ambitions of the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts). In his local paper, the North Wales Weekly News, he said that the coast road plan is on top of the list. Will the hon. Gentleman pay for the Cleddau bridge by the delaying of the A55? We should be told. I hope that when winding up the hon. Member for Cardiff, North-West (Mr. Roberts), who has no particular interest in either the Cleddau bridge or the A55, with his usual objectivity will come clean and tell us whether there is any money in the till at all.
I was interested to hear the comments of the Secretary of State that he will be pragmatic about the institutions that we set up, that he will not demolish them but will consider their role and see how effective they are. I am reminded of the opposition of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends when we set up the


Welsh Development Agency. I remember how they fought against it bitterly and how they made it as difficult as possible to get time in order to debate the setting up of the agency. Now, of course, Daniel has come to judgment with a slight U-turn. But I expect that there will be many other U-turns during the present Government's period of office, not unlike the previous Tory Administration.
There is one thing that the Secretary of State must make quite clear. We are told that the investment functions of the National Enterprise Board will be clipped. That will not exactly be the sale of the century. I concede that that cannot be done overnight, unless one sells the pictures off the wall in order to redeem the promise of lower taxation.
There are firms all over Wales in which there are WDA investments and which want to know how they will be treated if major NEB investments are to be sold off. What will be the measure and scale of the sell-off of WDA investments? Will it mean stopping the WDA exercising its role of being able to take up other investments in firms? Let me give a quick run-down of the firms in which there are WDA investments. There are P. Leiner in Treforest; Myson Radiators in Cardiff; Ryan; John Williams; Swansea Jig and Tool; A and E Instrumentation; Wheway Watson; the Brigray Group; Robertson Research, which is near the constituency of the hon. Member for Conway; DB Plastics; Delyn Limited; M. Mole and Son; Patol Limited; B.D. Altruck; H.G. Tubes; Four T Engineering; Palmer Research Laboratories, and Pack-a-ladder Limited. Right across Wales, from Anglesey down to Newport, firms have WDA investment in them. The workers of those firms are entitled to know at the earliest opportunity what the Secreary's plans are with regard to those investments. I presume that the agency's role will not be unlike that of the NEB. If it is not, we should be told.
I turn to factory building. I authorised more than 400 advance factories in Wales. I am the first to concede that factory lettings last year of 100, 46 or so in the period for which I was responsible this year, and the 88 provisional allocations—I am sure that there are more by now—deal with only part of the problem. Those of us who have been concerned

with Welsh affairs for a quarter of a century or more know the major structural problems that face us. But when I announced my advance factory programme I was sneered at by the then Opposition for continuing the building of advance factories because I was not able to let those factories immediately. However, our judgment has been vindicated by the take-up of those factories.
In my fifth general programme this year, I announced over 1½ million square footage of factories to be built over the next two years. Will that be allowed to continue? Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention to continue the rate of building as I announced, or will it be spread over a longer period? That is what the people of Wales, from one end to the other, will be asking.
The right hon. Gentleman was very quiet about the land clearance programme of the WDA. We increased the grant from 85 per cent. to 100 per cent., and that has been welcomed all over Wales. Following Aberfan and matters of that kind, we in the valley communities learned how subsequent generations had to pick up the bill of the past free-for-all, when people lined their pockets and left it to following generations. That was the era of the galvanised entrepreneur, about whom we have heard so much. I do not see much of an aura of galvanised or non-galvanised entrepreneurs about Welsh Office Ministers. But that is the price which the present generation had to pay for the free-for-all of the past.
Again, we are entitled to know whether the grant will remain the same. Will the amount of money to be made available remain the same, or will that also be subject to the axe? In The Economist this week, I read a wonderful whole-page advertisement entitled
What sort of carrot will it take to persuade you to move to wales?
It was an advertisement from the Welsh Development Agency. I am sure that the chairman of the board, Sir David Davis, and the managing director and chief executive, Mr. Ian Gray, would not be party to false advertisements and would not seek to mislead those who would wish to come to Wales.
Therefore, this advertisement in The Economist bears scrutiny for a few


moments. It says that if one moves to Wales, one could benefit from the wide range of Government incentives available. The first question is this: is the agency now saying what it was saying a month or six weeks ago? What change has there been? We have tried to probe in the last few days. What change is there to be in the incentives? Is this a fair and proper advertisement?
The WDA goes on to say that it
can provide finance in the form of loans".
Will it be allowed to provide finance in the form of loans or in equity capital to help one to establish in Wales? Is that a fair and proper advertisement in this week's edition of The Economist?
The WDA says that it can let factories with rent-free concessions. Will that be allowed to continue? Or, if one prefers it, the WDA goes on to say:
we can build a factory to your requirements".
Will that be allowed to continue? It goes on to boast of the improvement in communications, Cardiff Wales airport, the M4 and Freightliner services. It ends with these words:
We can advise you on the many Government incentives available.
In the absence of information given to this House, in that there has been this prolonged concealment of where the axe will fall, how can the WDA properly advise industry of the incentives available? We do not know.
This is the point at which I look at the heading,
What sort of carrot will it take to persuade you to move to Wales?
When I look at the small print very closely, I find that it is not a carrot after all; it is a leek with a noose around its neck. That is perhaps symptomatic of the role of the WDA in the future—slow strangulation, cutting off of the bloodstream, not giving it the resources and the money so that it can carry out a major role in face of the undeniable fact, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned earlier, of the major structural changes which we have to face in Wales.
The right hon. Gentleman has never liked the Development Board for Rural Wales because he knows that there is a guilty conscience for the inactivity of the Conservative Government between 1970

and 1974, because they did not replace the old Rural Development Board with anything. I ask one question. Are the social grant provisions of section 26 and other sections of the Act which introduced the DBRW to be allowed to continue? Will the hon. Gentleman help us on that? We should certainly like to know.
In Mid-Wales we are achieving a substantial turnabout of the past, when the then current problem was depopulation. We are seeing this change because of the use of powers and resources given to the WDA.
One matter that the right hon. Gentleman did not mention was the special measures which we have used to very significant effect to help what is undoubtedly a grave problem—unemployment. I am the first to agree with the right hon. Gentleman about that. But before I come to the special measures perhaps I may ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us his indication of the effect of these massive public expenditure cuts—if they are to be made—on unemployment in Wales. What estimate is there in the Welsh Office of what will happen if this kind of policy is pursued?
About 91,000 people in Wales have benefited from the special measures, by jobs either created or protected. I want to get this absolutely clear because the right hon. Gentleman used to confuse this matter in the totality of those who had benefited. He sought to add up those who were currently unemployed and to make that the total figure of those who were either unemployed or were being helped by measures. But in my latest figures those currently benefiting total 17,170.
That is a significant figure. It has been a great help in communities right across Wales. We would like to know—and there is a motion on the Order Paper to this effect—the Government's intention as regards the special measures and the youth opportunities programme in particular. The Manpower Services Commission has done a very good job. It has worked very hard. We have substantially met the Easter guarantee of either a job or a training place for the overwhelming number of young people who left school last year without a job. If there is to be a slashing of the youth opportunities programme, certainly that would be taken amiss right across Wales.
I curtail my remarks, although there are a whole host of other questions I should like to ask. I welcome very much the comment made about Concast, at Port Talbot. I declare my interest there. Certainly, from reading between the lines, that work will continue. That is to be welcomed.
We should like to know about the future of Shotton. I found some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) during the election campaign very peculiar indeed. When challenged yesterday, he did not demonstrate that his role and his comments during the campaign had been honourable.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I made a direct challenge to the Labour Party during the election campaign and received no reply. I can see nothing dishonourable in that.

Mr. Morris: Surely the hon. Gentleman does not imply that it is an honourable way of conducting an election campaign to clutch at a statement without basis or evidence. Yesterday when challenged he failed miserably to produce one iota of evidence for the statement that he categorically hawked from one end of Wales to the other that the decision had been taken. It is an odd way to make a challenge without evidence. What evidence does the hon. Gentleman have? It is not for a Government to deny a statement that is made with absolutely no evidence. If the hon. Gentleman has evidence, let him tell us now. He is not rising to his feet, so he obviously has none. That will be marked on both sides of the House.
Wales is highly dependent on public expenditure. If we had a proper day's debate there are other matters that we should have dealt with, but I merely quote the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday:
One thing is already plain—namely, that we shall need to secure a substantial reduction in the spending plans which we have inherited. That is indeed a central element to our strategy."—[Official Report, 22 May 1979; Vol. 967, c. 902.]
Wales is highly dependent on public expenditure. It is the central element not only to the Government's strategy but to the lives of hundreds of thousands of

people right across Wales. They are entitled to know where the axe will fall, and they have not yet been told. I therefore do not know what the debate is about.

Mr. Speaker: There remains but one hour for hon. Members on the Back Benches to speak, and I shall give priority to hon. Members making their maiden speech. We have all been through the agony of waiting, and I hope that all hon. Members will understand when I call first new hon. Members.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. Tom Hooson: I am grateful for this early opportunity to address the House for the first time. My predecessor, Mr. Caerwyn Roderick, is well known and liked in the constituency and the House for his unfailing courtesy and easy manner. He was born and educated in the constituency and later returned to it to build a fine reputation as a teacher of mathematics and later a lecturer.
In numerous post-war elections my party strove hard to win this seat. It is a remarkable tribute to Mr. Roderick and Lord Watkins, his predecessor, who is better known in this House as Mr. Tudor Watkins, that between them they successfully fended us off for over 40 years. The best prizes in life are those that are hard to achieve, and this prize is quite simply the loveliest constituency in the country. Every maiden speaker announces that his constituency is a thing of beauty. I modestly ask the House to accept that in my case it may place unhesitating reliance on that statement. I trust that that will always be true of every statement that I make.
I invite hon. Members to take their holidays in the constituency if they wait until we have completed the Brecon bypass. We have a longer queue of cars in the town of Brecon and more people coming into the tourist office than anywhere else in South Wales. We boast the Brecon Beacons national park and two of the loveliest valleys in the country, the Wye and the Usk or, to use their even lovelier Welsh names, y Gwy a'r Wysg.
We are also the largest constituency, in area, in England and Wales, and cover one-eighth of Wales. The 91 constituencies of Greater London could be dropped


into Brecon and Radnor and there would still be room for the Brecon Beacons national park. We straddle over several local government boundaries, we reach down into Gwent, and we reach into Mid-Glamorgan, but for the most part we are in Powys, and our sister constituency in Powys is Montgomery. The House ran some risk that it might have been a cousin constituency, with one family representing two parties. In the event, the strongest Conservative wave that Wales has seen in 105 years brought in two Conservative Members for Powys.
With you in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, one can say of a Welsh day that there in the feeling of a family gathering. For that reason, I hope that I shall be allowed to say how much my cousin, Emlyn Hooson, appreciates the kind messages that hon. Members on both sides of the House have asked me to convey to him.
There are two signals that I should like to pick up from the electorate as pointers for this debate. The first comes from the referendum on 1 March, when 80 per cent. of the Welsh voters agreed with those, including the Conservative Party, who urged that, although some innovations were needed, constitutional innovations were less relevant to the immediate needs of Wales than was putting the economy right. Many of us admire the courage and the quality of the contribution that was made to that debate by the independent-minded hon. Members on the Labour Benches. We need a forum, and I believe that we in Wales will gain greatly by the creation of a Welsh Select Committee in which we can achieve discussion that is realistic and formative to enable us to make pragmatic decisions.
The second signal that I want to draw out from the general election, if my general election experience is anything to go by, is that what drew so many Welsh voters to our side was our radical emphasis upon a fresh approach to the economy. The people of Wales want lower income tax, incentives, and more encouragement for small businesses and the self-employed. Nowhere in the country is so large a proportion of the employment of the total working population in small business as it is in Mid-Wales. In Wales as a whole, two-thirds of all the farms are of less than 150 acres. Two-thirds

of all the building contractors employ seven people or fewer. Two-thirds of the hotels have 15 rooms or less.
Those small businesses are the seed beds for new jobs, and all hon. Members are anxious to see unemployment figures coming down. The worst hit area for unemployment in the whole of Brecon and Radnor is Brynmawr, which had the misfortune in the 1930s of having the highest unemployment figure in Wales, and even in April this year the unemployment rate in the area was 11·8 per cent. There are worrying clouds over Smith's Industries in Ystradgynlais, another important town in my constituency.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry was right to emphasise in the debate on Monday that we should go through a gradual transition to a fresh industrial policy. We have a mandate for fresh policies, but we cannot achieve overnight miracles. We must carry the whole nation with us in moving towards new industrial policies, clearly understanding that many workers are sincerely though, I believe, mistakenly fearful of the consequences of new policies.
As a Member for a thinly populated rural area that is totally dependent on road transport for its economy and movement, I must call attention to the hard impact that our area may feel with the growing shortage of petrol and the certainty of rising prices for motor fuel. We shall be looking to the Government to ensure in negotiations with oil companies that the independent operators, who are so important as sources of petrol in the countryside, still have access to supplies.
We must keep a close watch on the real income of the people in the countryside. They have an average real income below the figures for the country as a whole. They will have higher costs to travel long distances to work. We must look very carefully at the impact of fuel costs on the rural parts of Wales and of England.
Our farmers have experienced one of the most severe winters in living memory. The Farmers' Union of Wales this week published an estimate that Welsh farmers' losses of sheep and lambs exceeded 500,000 this winter. The extra 50p allowance went little of the way towards paying the extra costs of the severe winter,


and there was no allowance available to the farmers on marginal land. The farmers' plight was made worse by the fact that the computer strike slowed down the payment of cheques, so that the farmers' borrowings have had to be extended at the banks—and that at a very high rate of interest.
Our real need in farming is not short-term allowances, however. That is not my point. Our great need is long-term stability for agriculture. I know that the farmers of Wales are hopeful in seeing that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State represents a great agricultural area and that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is himself a hill farmer just over the border from Powys. We hope that there is here a good understanding of the problems of agriculture.
The real income of Welsh farmers has fallen over the past few years. We have made commitments that there must be gradual adjustments in the rate of the green pound. I want to call attention to other ways in which we must ensure that the farmers of this country are not at a disadvantage compared with those elsewhere in the European Community. I give two examples.
The first relates to marginal land, which is of great importance to the constituencies of central Wales. The present definition excludes a great deal of marginal land. We need to look at the Community definition of less advantaged areas, because there are funds that could be tapped. This is a most important point on which to work.
A second area in which we must ensure that there is no disadvantage for our Welsh farmers is the export of live animals. We are a very important livestock area, with a great production of beef and sheep. There would be a considerable blow to the economy of farming in the area if there were unreasonable restrictions on the export of live animals. There should, of course, be control to ensure that the transport is decent, but we must not be at a disadvantage in export regulations compared with our Community partners.
I close by referring to a report that is due very shortly and that will be most important for the future of farming—the

report of the Northfield committee on land ownership. We face an increasing crisis in finding an opportunity for young people who were not clever enough to choose farmers as their parents to obtain an entry into farming. I hope that when the Northfield committee has produced various options, both sides of the House will be able to study them in a nonpartisan way. Indeed, I hope that we shall work together on Welsh issues throughout the life of this Parliament. That is why I put such faith in the creation of a Welsh Select Committee.

8.40 p.m.

Dr. Roger Thomas: I am very glad to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, in this much-truncated Welsh affairs debate. It is a great pleasure to be called immediately after the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Hooson), because it gives me an opportunity to say how much I appreciated his kind words for the former hon. Member for his constituency, Caerwyn Roderick.
The very first political name to fall upon my ears as a child in the county of Carmarthen about to enter a grammar school at the beginning of the war was that of Jim Griffiths. His poet brother was then caretaker at that school and, to this day, Jim remains an inspiration to me personally, being from the Amman valley.
In the valley further west, the Member of Parliament was not Jim but an equally revered man named Daniel Hopkin. He was the man who won my seat first for Labour back in 1935. Little did I think that I should be privileged to become its Labour Member of Parliament and to represent here, in the cradle of democracy, people who flout the electoral convention to an extent worthy of a permanent place in the "Guinness Book of Records".
The non-Socialist vote in Carmarthen baffles most people. There is a volatility of opinion. There is a tendency to vote for a personality. In the main, that is the most feasible explanation why, when a Labour Government go out of office, the constituency of Carmarthen returns to the Labour fold.
The converse holds good as well, of course. At the time of the Labour landslide in 1945, when the country at large realised who should be entrusted with the


rebuilding of society after the Second World War, Carmarthen rejected its Labour Member of Parliament. For 12 years the Liberals, taking full advantage of the Conservatives not fielding a candidate, ruled the roost, often holding back the Labour challenge by only a few hundred votes. This fact hardly reflected the very deep respect in which Sir Rhys Hop-kin Morris was held in Wales and in Westminster.
Plaid Cymru finally took the parliamentary plunge at the 1956 general election, and it was my party which suffered the greater setback. Then the Suez crisis was upon us and, at the by-election in the immediate aftermath of that fruitless escapade, the physically diminutive but politically mature daughter of the famous Lloyd George won the hearts and votes of the people of Carmarthen. She remained our Member of Parliament for what was for many a short decade, fighting the 1966 election from her deathbed.
At the ensuing by-election, my immediate predecessor began two full parliamentary terms. The first heralded a nationalist upsurge, in Scotland as well as in the industrial valleys of Wales. It started a process of democratic devolution for the two countries, then of course only a minute ripple but one which 20 years later led to the election through which we have just come.
Advantaged by a first-class legal brain and finding himself in a personal position where he could dedicate himself totally as a young man to the politics of the Principality, my predecessor, Mr. Gwyn-for Evans, had the immense capacity of obtaining total commitment from those sensitive and sympathetic to his analysis of the situation in Wales.
It goes without saying that my analysis and my conclusions differ vastly from his. Culturally, we are probably not all that far apart except on such matters as the fourth television channel. However, our horizons and our aspirations for the people of Wales are poles apart. I acknowledge that although my methods are sincere, they could also, at times, be wrong and misplaced. The love of one's country, its heritage and its well-being are certainly not the prerogative of one political party. The efforts of others with whom one may disagree do not deserve continual spurning and intolerant reaction.
Mr. Gwynfor Evans's two full parliamentary terms were separated by our being represented by a young man of great energy and talent, already mentioned by the Government Front Bench, Mr. Gwynoro Jones. He served the constituency well. But, just as in 1945, so between the two elections of 1974, when things were moving Labour's way, Carmarthen was lost for Labour, and we lost a fine constituency Member of Parliament. The past five years have witnessed torrents of criticism from those now in charge of the Welsh Office as well as from those demanding that our political and economic salvation lies along separatist lines. Labour's measures for combating unemployment were wasteful according to the former and totally inadequate according to the latter.
We in Dyfed much appreciated the Welsh Office announcement last November that money for school capital building projects was to be almost doubled for the coming three years. Much of this money will go on secondary school reorganisation, leaving far too little to replace our many Dickensian primary schools. A greater portion of such money has to be used upon the upkeep of existing old schools which, honestly, are not fit to be places for the education of our younger children. Falling numbers in schools is no excuse for cutbacks. Now we have a great chance for smaller classes, for more nursery provision and for concentrating upon the needs of less academically inclined children to prepare them for their future at work in society.
A vast sum of money will be needed soon for a new school in Milford Haven. That is outside my constituency but I am still a member of the Dyfed education authority and so responsible for that area. This will cost almost as much as Dyfed is being allowed to spend on new school buildings for the coming three years. I can assure the Secretary of State that all hell will be let loose if he sanctions a new school at Milford in order to boost his own, standing at the expense of the remainder of Dyfed.
While we are talking in round figures—in the realms of possibly £3 million or £4 million—will the Secretary of State give the latest thinking on how Dyfed ratepayers are to be given some financial relief for the financing of the famous, or


possibly infamous, Cleddau bridge? Financing specific election promises will probably be of interest to the whole of Wales and not only its south-west corner.
The ever-increasing proportion of our population over retirement age presents us with a huge inescapable problem. The attitude of those in power and how they react to this mounting problem reflects their basic outlook and philosophy. On the doorsteps just four weeks ago I felt very proud of our attitude, as a Labour Party, to the elderly. They in turn were even then openly expressing fears that a new Government would bring into being a more inflexible and decidedly harsher approach. As far as is humanly possible, the elderly should be integrated into the community and should enjoy to the full the social and cultural life of any district.
I have for far too long been intimately connected with the social services committee of a local authority. It is trying its best with a limited budget to go as far as is economically possible. Such committees must have finances to provide comprehensive meals on wheels and home helps without having to carry out offensive investigations into the intimate finances of the elderly.
I assure the Secretary of State that in the country in Wales which we both have the honour to represent, the fears of cutbacks and the provision of even more skimpy and skeletal social services than hitherto is a reality that people are beginning to face as Tory designs are becoming more and more openly understood by all.
We in Wales are very proud of our continuing contribution to evolutionary Socialism essentially based upon our long radical tradition—an ethnic radicalism which grew out of working-class non-conformity.
Being brought up in a South-West Wales mining valley during the late 1930s, when poverty and hardship abounded, has made me deeply distrustful of and antagonistic towards the Tory capitalist motive all my working life. But I have to admit that I have moved in professional circles noted for conservatism with both a small and a capital "C".
These days there may be very little political mileage in harping back to the black days of the thirties, but there has been a more threatening attitude from this Administration to the whole fabric of our society than at any time since those dark days of dejection and destitution. I have a fear that Wales—a land which needs and is dependent upon community financial support more than practically any other part of the United Kingdom—may soon be facing problems on a par with the 'thirties.
We welcome any assurances that the dedication, so apparent hitherto in the Welsh Office, to better east-west communications within Wales will continue under the present incumbents. However, can we expect the same degree of urgency and total commitment? Can we in West Wales still look forward to having a first-class dual carriageway west of the M4 to the Whitland side of St. Clears?
We are lucky on unemployment in the Carmarthen area—a rate of only 3·6 per cent. But in areas north and west of the county agriculture and tourist industries are not enough. Despite better prospects, which are the direct result of the actions of the former Secretary of State with his enlightened road and factory policy, new and diverse industries are needed to press home the obvious advantage of better communication.
Last week I went along to offer moral support to the Dyfed stand at The Sunday Times business-to-business exhibition at Earls Court. Possibly as one of Dyfed's four Members of Parliament, the Secretary of State was also invited. No doubt he did his duty by his prestigious presence. The selling of Dyfed is an immense problem, but the policies of this Administration will make the task of our industrial officers ever so much greater.
The Conservatives took a long while to stop being cynical about the Welsh Development Agency. With the set of priorities that this Administration have announced, there will be other areas much nearer the main population centres of Britain and the Continent that will be fighting for job-creating enterprises. When, as the Tories expect, the total of jobless creeps up to the 2 million mark, what magical cure will the Secretary of


State have for attracting jobs and industries to Dyfed? It will probably embrace the three great personal virtues from the thirteenth chapter of Corinthians—faith, hope and charity, and the Tories are not noted for their handing out of the last.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Keith Best: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your kindness in calling me, and I hope that I shall have the honour to be called again. I ask that before you have heard what I shall say. It is difficult to follow the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Dr. Thomas). I hope that I shall certainly have the opportunity of hearing him again on many occasions.
I should like to thank right hon. and hon. Members for being present this evening. I hope that they will not leave the Chamber, however tedious I may be. I hope that they will not act like the guests at one dinner party of which I heard. There the post-prandial speaker went on at interminable length until the audience tiptoed out of the room one by one, leaving a solitary guest at the end of the table. The speaker turned to him and said "I think that I should thank you for having remained to listen to me", to which he received the reply "That is quite all right. I am the next speaker."
It is inhibiting and awesome enough for a new Member to make his maiden speech in this honourable House, but I am afraid, as you will have detected, Mr. Speaker, that I have an added disability tonight, and that is in my voice, which appears to be leaving me. The sole consolation that I can offer the House is that I cannot detain it too long.
I think that I probably have the most difficult task of any new Member, for two reasons. First, I follow in the footsteps of Cledwyn Hughes, known colloquially as Mr. Anglesey. He was universally revered and respected in this House and elsewhere, but deeply so in his constituency. It is no exaggeration to say that for 28 years he kept Anglesey for the Labour Party. The strength of his personality alone did that. A measure of his popularity in the constituency is the number of Conservatives that I have discovered there who have told me that they used to vote for Mr. Hughes. That shows perhaps that Conservative voters

are discriminating if, at times, somewhat politically naive. I believe that Mr. Hughes will be sadly missed in this House, and I am certainly glad that I followed rather than supplanted him.
The second reason why my task is difficult is that people will expect great things of me, since I achieved the highest winning swing in the United Kingdom—12½ per cent. It was described in The Economist as the most remarkable gain of the election. I suppose that my quest for superlatives is assisted by my surname, but I feel that it will be very difficult to attempt to live up to that.
I must also remember the words of advice given by Lloyd George to his daughter Megan, who was the previous incumbent to Cledwyn Hughes in Anglesey. I believe that Lloyd George said to his daughter "It is easier for a gander to pass through the eye of a needle than for a Tory to be elected in Anglesey." This Parliament has now seen the first-ever Conservative Member elected for Anglesey, and I am sure that the island will not stray from the true path again.
I know that it is customary on these occasions to describe one's constituency as the most beautiful in the whole United Kingdom, and I recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Hooson) followed the convention, doing precisely that, but I speak with the certainty that I am right when I so describe my constituency—and, anyway, how many right hon. and hon. Members here tonight would be so uncharitable as to gainsay me on the occasion of my maiden speech?
Anglesey has everything to offer. It has a beautiful coastline of caves and bays which has afforded shelter to small boats over hundreds—indeed, thousands—of years and which now attracts thousands of visitors each year. It is undulating and low-lying, with remarkably equable temperatures throughout the year, with very small seasonal variations. The House will probably have gathered by now that I am doing a public relations job for the tourist board of Anglesey.
I should add that spring arrives in Anglesey two weeks earlier than it does in the heartland of Wales. Moreover—I say this with apologies to my hon. Friends here tonight—Anglesey is the driest


county in Wales, which is perhaps saying something. In fact, Holyhead itself has more sunshine than do even the coastal resorts of North and West Wales.
I believe that Anglesey is a paradise island. It has what I regard as the call of the Sirens about it, which is exemplified by the way in which visitors come to the island. They hear the call of the Sirens and they stay. I know your views on the island of Anglesey, Mr. Speaker, and I feel that the mysticism of the ancient Druids still lingers on and lures the unwary traveller and holidaymaker to remain in that idyllic world. This, surely, is why the electorate has grown by more than 10 per cent. over the past five years.
I believe also that Anglesey presents a very good cameo for the whole of Wales. Agriculture is extremely important, and I am glad that the Government have removed the threat of wealth tax and back-door agricultural land nationalisation with which agriculture was so seriously threatened during the past few years. But we must now, I think, be careful not to introduce a new threat to our most important industries—and notably agriculture—the threat of soaring fuel costs, the ramifications of which can be so desperately and disastrously widespread.
In Anglesey we have a variety of industries. We have the power station at Wylfa, a thriving and expanding port served by British Rail, and many light industries. But, unfortunately—there must, I suppose, always be an unfortunate element introduced in a speech of this kind—there is deep sadness in Anglesey, as there is in the rest of Wales, in that we have the most appalling unemployment.
Unemployment in Anglesey rose from 8 per cent. when the Conservatives were last in office to the disastrous figure of some 14 per cent. under the Labour Government. I shall not be as cruel to the Labour Government as the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) was to the Conservative Government in 1972, when, in Opposition, he attacked them and, referring to unemployment rates at half the level to which they peaked under the Labour Government, said:
Ever since the day of John Maynard Keynes, any Government allowing unemployment

rates to rise not even as high as this rate have been guilty, if not of a criminal act, certainly of criminal negligence."—[Official Report, 24 January 1972; Vol. 829. c. 1089.]
It would be asking too much to have such a distinguished audience as that of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) listening to my maiden speech. However, it is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman is not here, as in July 1974 he was quoted in the Daily Mirror as saying:
I'm not prepared to sit in this place and preside over mass unemployment.
The Government have relieved him of the embarrassment of presiding over mass unemployment. As for sitting here, who knows what the future holds?
The Conservative Government have the right ideas for trying to ameliorate the disastrous effects of unemployment, which are the principal affliction in the side of the people of Wales. It is against that background of high unemployment that I consider Anglesey Aluminium. The company would like to expand and provide some 500 extra jobs for my constituents. It was prevented from doing so by the previous Government and the CEGB, which would not provide electricity at a cost as competitive as that charged by other countries to their similar industries.
That was regrettable. We currently consume in the United Kingdom only a little more aluminium than we actually produce. However, by 1985 we shall have to import around half of our aluminium, and that will be in the economic climate of a world shortfall in aluminium supplies. By providing cheaper electricity to Anglesey Aluminium we would not only assist the United Kingdom's requirements but provide much-needed jobs in Anglesey. I know the prospects are not very great, but I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will consider the problem carefully.
Where else can we find future employment in Wales? I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor, who spoke about the small businesses. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, more than half the employment in Wales comes from businesses employing fewer than 200 people. I conducted a survey of small businesses in Anglesey and that showed conclusively that they all wished to expand and take


on extra staff. But they dared not do so because of the employment protection legislation.
That is not party political propaganda from a new Conservative Back Bencher. That is solid fact. Those in my constituency who try to run small businesses and wish to take on extra staff cannot do so. That is why I welcome the Conservative Government's proposal to review employment protection legislation and to reduce Government interference in small business. That is where a tremendous capacity for employment lies in future.
There is a great need for the activities of the Welsh Development Agency. I welcome the comments of my right hon. Friend on the WDA. I also welcome the new scheme, announced today, which guarantees loans of up to £50,000 to business men with interesting projects who are unable to provide the necessary security. We must allow the Welsh Development Agency a degree of flexibility financially to assist the businesses most in need. It appears that the small business unit now gives assistance only to wholesalers or manufacturers. There are many others occupied in small businesses who need similar assistance but who are not necessarily involved in wholesaling or manufacturing.
One of my constituents who is in the greengrocery and canned food retail business wishes to expand and take on extra staff. However, the Welsh Development Agency has not assisted him. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look at the matter to make sure that those who can produce extra employment facilities in industries and small businesses will be assisted.
There is need for financial assistance, especially in Wales. But there must be a greater scrutiny over financial assistance and where it goes. Automatic assistance was given to the Milford Haven Gulf refinery. That investment was unnecessary, as it would have come in any event. The cost to the taxpayer of each job was about £38,500. All Members of Parliament, certainly Government supporters, will agree that that is a ridiculous way in which to squander public money.
That, incidentally, compares most unfavourably with the Welsh tourist trade, in which jobs are being created at a cost to the taxpayer of less than £2,000 per job. This is where we should concentrate.

We must look to the jobs for the future. They must be provided in the areas of greatest need. We must create the greatest number of jobs for the least amount of money. That is why I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider where we shall get the best value for money in employment. We must ensure that we create the extra jobs that are so desperately needed in Wales.
It always saddened me when people spoke of unemployment statistics. Perhaps it is only when we become Members of Parliament, having spoken to so many people, that we realise that they are not only statistics. They relate to people, our constituents, the Welsh people, who have lost their jobs and who are now crying out for them. The Welsh poet summarised the situation when he said:
Cyfocth gwlad yw ei thrigolion
which means that the wealth of a nation is in its people. Members of Parliament on both sides of the House should never forget that.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Ray Powell: I compliment the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) on his speech. If he can speak like that at such length with little voice, there will be many late-night sittings in the future.
On the first occasion that I spoke, I addressed myself with the same pride as you did, Mr. Speaker, when you were elected to preside over these intricate proceedings. You enjoyed the unanimous support of all Members of Parliament. I am sure you fully appreciated that some of us were prouder than others. I refer especially to the Welsh Members of Parliament who witnessed and participated in your election. You, Mr. Speaker, and I share something that is unique. We are both Rhondda Valley born, sons of miners, and justly proud of our heritage. It is most regrettable that some of our nearest relatives did not live to share these proud moments, especially your mother and my parents and dear sister. You, Mr. Speaker, have already made a substantial contribution to the history of this country.
Against that background, it is with trepidation and sincerity of purpose that I am privileged to represent Ogmore. Having lived and worked there for 12 years, I am alive to the problems of the


area. Most of them stem from a lack of concern by the previous mine owners, who exploited the area to the fullest degree. They were responsible for the dereliction and environmental rape that was well known throughout the mining valleys of Wales. I am sure that Parliament and our people would never tolerate that again.
I am, nevertheless, pleased to state that Ogmore, like many other mining valleys in Wales over the past decade, has benefited from the degree of concern and drive to clean up our communities and improve our environment. I sincerely hope that this will continue with the present Government and that there will be no cuts in land reclamation schemes.
When elected to serve as Member of Parliament for Ogmore, I fully appreciated the extent of my responsibilities, especially having to succeed the very high calibre of representation provided by Walter Padley, John Evans, Vernon Hartshorn and many others. I can only pray that I shall be able to maintain their standards and give the constituents the representation that they deserve.
I am fortunate, Mr. Speaker, to have inherited a constituency with a sound industrial base, brought about over a number of years by the policies of regional development, and in particular the extension of the M4 to Pencoed. Here I pay special tribute to the untiring efforts of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). It was through his efforts and those of the Welsh Development Agency that we were able to get the Ford factory in Bridgend and the Rockwool factory at Pencoed. There has also been the investment at Port Talbot steelworks and the extensive assistance afforded to industrial development generally. I therefore view with great reservation the Government's statements made during the debate on the Queen's Speech. I hope that the Secretary of State for Wales will give me assurances that there will be no reductions or cuts in these developments, and that, to enable the local authorities to continue their extension of services to cover a growth area, there will be no cuts in public expenditure in Ogmore.
My worry over the last few days on the whole question of public expenditure

cuts is related to the promised development of a new hospital in Bridgend. The proposed commencement date is 1980. It would be a great relief to be assured that the axe will not fall on this development, and, indeed, that an earlier starting date will be announced.
The right hon. Gentleman will also appreciate that, with a growth area of the magnitude envisaged in Bridgend, adequate schools, health care, houses and leisure services are essential to meet the growing needs of the population. Some 3,000 to 4,000 of my constituents work at Port Talbot steelworks. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will also be able to assure me that he will consider an extension of financial investment there.
I review the past few weeks, Mr. Speaker, as a nightmare. First, as a new Member, I have been struggling to master the complexities of this House, to find my way around the corridors with letters and papers under my arm, and with no desk on which to work. Next, we have been presented with a Queen's Speech that will cause unrest and upheaval worse than I had ever anticipated. It is regrettable that Wales, too, must suffer the effects, when the people of Wales kept faith with Labour and gave the Labour Party 47·9 per cent. of their votes, electing 21 Labour Members, compared with 32·8 per cent. of the votes to the Conservatives and 11 Conservative Members elected. Thus, despite the referendum result, we might still have benefited had we accepted the need for a Welsh Assembly.
I hope that the Government will also give early consideration to the review of local government reorganisation and to some form of regional government, which I believe is essential to Wales in particular and to the country in general.
The past few days and the debate on the Queen's Speech, together with certain reservations expressed, might allow me to wake up from this horrible nightmare and find that we are still to be a united nation, that we shall not make the same mistakes as we made in the past, that we are not embarking on confrontation and that we shall see the implementation of a commitment in the Conservative


Government manifesto. Page 9 of that document reads:
A strong and responsible trade union movement could play a big part in our economic recovery. We cannot go on, year after year, tearing ourselves apart in increasingly bitter and calamitous industrial disputes. In bringing about economic recovery, we should all be on the same side. Government and public, management and unions, employers and employees, all have a common interest in raising productivity and profits, thus increasing investment and employment, and improving real living standards for everyone.".
Having listened to the words of the Prime Minister yesterday, when she said "I am not confronting anyone. I hope they will not confront me", I sincerely hope that the acoustics of the House distorted the tone of her voice. It surely was not in keeping with the commitment that I have just quoted from her party's manifesto.
I am attempting to be non-controversial in my maiden speech and have highlighted only the topics which need urgent answers. There are other matters that require attention, such as tax relief on widows' pensions and on the cost of travel to work, leasehold reform, and many others which must be left for a future occasion.
I think that it is fitting and proper that a miner's son, representing a constituency with mining interests, should say a word or two on the subject of colliery closures. In my constituency there are five collieries. Recently one was closed and the staff transferred to a nearby colliery. I often wonder what amount of coal is left in the ground when a colliery is closed. For economic reasons, and considering the escalating price of petrol, I wonder whether our energy policy should be reorganised so that we can save some for future generations. I ask for a firm assurance that there will be no further colliery closures until supplies are completely exhausted.
In conclusion, I promise the House that my future contributions will be based on my belief in social justice and an egalitarian society, and my firmly held conviction that a humanitarian approach must be made to solve our problems with emphasis on need and not greed.

Mr. Speaker: The accents in this debate have been sheer music for us all, I know, However, I appeal to hon. Members whom I now call to make three-minute

speeches, abandoning the speech that they intended to make, before I call the Front Bench.

9.24 p.m.

Mr. Geraint Howells: First of all, I congratulate the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). He was constructive in his approach and I believe that his tone was sincere, and I wish him well in the future.
As we are debating Welsh affairs, Mr. Speaker, I think that it is my duty to congratulate you on your re-election to the post that you have graced with such success over the past few years and to wish you well in the coming Parliament, which will, I am sure, be no less interesting and demanding than the last.
I also offer my congratulations to the right hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) on his appointment as Secretary of State for Wales and to the two hon. Members who have been appointed as Under-Secretaries of State at the Welsh Office. They have been entrusted with a most important task, although not with the wholehearted support of the Welsh electorate. Nevertheless, they must face the considerable challenge that the problem of Wales will present over, possibly, the next five years. I wish them well.
At last it has been recognised by central Government, as witnessed by the expansion of the Welsh Office over recent years, that Wales has her own problems and needs that must be met. It is my hope that the Secretary of State can bring an open mind to these problems and not feel that he has to carry out rigid policies based on Tory principles that are unsuitable for Wales and her economic future. There are still many radicals left in Wales.
I should like the right hon. Gentleman to remember that in parts of my constituency, for example, there are unemployment figures in the region of 13·5 per cent., and that Mid-Wales needs Government help to bring in more industries and more employment opportunities.
As I have only a minute left, I turn to the economic future of Wales, which is important to us all, and also to our cultural heritage. I should be glad to know what value the present Government place on this aspect of Welsh life. I know that at the outset the Secretary of State outlined his views on the language, but many of us consider that if we are to preserve the Welsh language a great deal of money


will have to be spent on Welsh matters and education. For example, money will have to be spent on bilingual education in our schools, as well as the setting up of separate bilingual schools in Wales. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to implement in full the Bowen recommendations on road signs?
In his opening remarks the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government would look after the interests of the national Eisteddfod. Being a proud Eisteddfod man myself, I hope that in the years to come the Government will look after the interests of the national Eisteddfod, of which we are all so proud.
The question of a fourth channel in Wales also needs to be examined in detail. I should like to know what plans there are to ensure that there is an adequate amount of Welsh language programming and that the quality of those programmes will be guaranteed by a large injection of money. I hope that the Welsh language programmes will not all be shown at the most unpopular viewing times and that those responsible for programming will make room for flexibility in their plans. I have heard, and read, that the Government hope to introduce Welsh programmes between 4 o'clock and 7 o'clock. In my view, there should be more flexibility. Perhaps we should take a year to examine the whole set-up.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Mr. D. E. Thomas (Merioneth)rose—

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman take two minutes to speak his words of congratulation?

Mr. Thomas: I congratulate everyone, Mr. Speaker. I should like to follow what the hon. Member fro Cardigan (Mr. Howells) said about broadcasting and to stress that I welcome the consultations that are to be held by the Home Secretary on this issue.
The one point that concerns me is that the decision already announced by the Government to set up a second ITV channel throughout the United Kingdom should not undermine the proposal that is generally supported in Wales for the fourth channel to be used for a Welsh language service. Having had the Crawford, Siberry, Annan and Littler reports, and a proposal from the previous

Administration to set up a Welsh language television council which could run the channel, it is essential that we find a way of ensuring that the Welsh language television council can become a subcommittee of the Independent Broadcasting Authority, so that there can be representation there and so that the channel can be based on co-operation between the BBC and the commercial contractor in Wales. We should not have a situation in which it will not be possible for the major producer of Welsh language material—the BBC—to co-operate on a national channel. It is essential that we should not allow the fact that the Conservative Party has quite naturally surrendered the fourth channel to the commercial interests to undermine the need for Welsh language public service broadcasting.

Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Without casting anything against yourself, because it is a matter outside your control, perhaps I may point out how ridiculous it is that when we have a Welsh day debate once every two and a half years a Plaid Cymru Member is allowed only two minutes to speak in it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he has not made a point of order, and I would not have allowed him to say what he has said if I had known what it was.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Alec Jones: Perhaps at the outset I can offer my congratulations to the maiden speakers. To show how unbiased I am, I begin by congratulating the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Hooson) and Anglesey (Mr. Best). I think that they will have to take their fight outside this Chamber to decide which is the most beautiful constituency or county of Wales. I look forward to the opportunity of hearing them again when I shall not be bound by the convention of being polite, kind and courteous to maiden speakers.
I was particularly pleased to hear the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Carmarthen (Dr. Thomas) and Ogmore (Mr. Powell). I am glad to welcome them to the House. Not only is my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore a son of Rhondda—as you are, Mr. Speaker—but I am a son of Rhondda. My hon. Friend and I have been allies


in many fights in the past. It looks as though we shall be allies in the future.
This debate—I was going to say "this Welsh day debate", but I think that I should say "this Welsh two hours and 40 minutes"—is not an occasion when we judge the Government on their actions. In fairness to them, they have not been in office long enough to do much harm—yet. Therefore, instead of judging them on their actions, we are forced to rely on their speeches and the content of the Conservative manifesto and the Queen's Speech.
The section of the Queen's Speech which most frightens the life out of me is the part of the sentence which refers to
restricting the claims of the public sector on the nation's resources".
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) tried to get some information from the Secretary of State on this matter. The Secretary of State cannot remain silent for ever on it. We shall need to know what cuts in public expenditure will take place concerning Wales.
As several hon. Members have quite clearly indicated today, we in Wales are more dependent on public expenditure than most of the regions of England. Public expenditure per head of population in Wales is 10 per cent. more than the national average. That is not because we in Wales are spendthrifts. Neither is it because we are scroungers. It is because our needs in Wales are different, and in some cases our needs are greater than those in other areas.
I look at my own constituency. There are no private schools in Rhondda. All my children depend on a publicly financed education system. There are no private hospitals there. All my sick people depend on a publicly financed National Health Service. There are no private nursing homes for elderly people. My elderly people depend on publicly financed social services.
That pattern is not unique to Rhondda. It is a pattern to be found almost throughout Wales. It shows that our needs, the needs of our children, of our sick people and of our elderly people, can be met only through a high level of public expenditure.
That is why I viewed with alarm the Chancellor's speech yesterday when he talked so easily of these great cuts in public expenditure. I must tell the Secretary of State that we shall be watching, and all Wales will be watching, to see that these essential services, on which the quality of life of our people depends, are not harmed.
My right hon. and learned Friend intervened yesterday on the question of the rate support grant. I have taken part in rate support grant debates for many years. Almost without exception, criticism has come from both sides of the House on the regression analysis method used in deciding the level of rate support. The present system is not sufficiently flexible to reflect the differing needs in Wales.
We were working towards a separate system for Wales to take greater account of the different needs of rural areas. Hon. Members on both sides of the House over the last few years have frequently indicated their dissatisfaction with the way that the present system works in Wales and adversely affects rural areas. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will seriously consider the advantages of a fairer distribution and a separate Welsh rate support grant system.
I represent Rhondda and believe that the coal industry is vital to the economy of Wales. When the mineworkers or we on this side of the House talk of protecting the coal industry, we mean more than saving jobs. We mean preserving an industry with an essential role to play in satisfying the nation's energy needs in the years ahead. When North Sea oil runs out, as it will, we shall need a viable and healthy coal industry. That will require pits and men. We must ensure that our industry, particularly in South Wales, is healthy now. Without that, there will be no men or pits for the future.
Investment in the South Wales coalfields has run at about £80 million over the past three years. I was a member of the tripartite committee, and we examined levels of investment. That investment is already beginning to pay off, and was evidence of the Labour Government's commitment to the future of the industry in Wales. The report of that committee is there for everyone to see. It calls for new investment, a programme to deal with losses on


current operations and Government financial support to sustain the coalfield, which all require more public expenditure.
If the Government are sincere in wanting to preserve a coal industry, they must accept an increase in public expenditure. That is necessary to preserve the industry not only for the miners, their families and the mining communities but to ensure that we have a coal industry to supply our energy needs in the future.
The right hon. Gentleman may think that I am sensitive about housing, but I have had to wrestle with the problem for a while. His selective description of the housing situation was a little less than fair. He confirmed that one of our problems in Wales has been the inability of many local authorities to use the resources allocated to them, and I hope that the figures for the current year will prove that we took some steps in that direction. He painted a gloomy picture, but he did not mention that in 1973, the last year for which his party was responsible, the number of completions in Wales was 3,377, the lowest figure for nearly 20 years.
The right hon. Gentleman also quoted the 1976 survey. When that was published I said that we could not be satisfied with the number of houses in Wales lacking one or more of the standard amenities. The survey showed 18 per cent. of houses in Wales in that category. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that that is far too many, but he did not say that the 1973 survey showed 25 per cent. of houses in that position. There has been an improvement, but there is still a long way to go.
By compelling local authorities to sell council houses we do not do anything to solve the housing problem. Not one house is added to the housing stock. I am not opposed to home ownership, and the figures clearly show that we have allowed local authorities in Wales to sell houses. The number sold in Wales last year was 1,031, compared with mere hundreds sold in 1975. I believe it is wrong to force local authorities to sell, because local authorities are elected and they can best determine the housing policies for their area. It is the better estates that will be sold, and local authorities will be left with the high management cost estates. The sale of council

houses makes it much more difficult for local authorities to arrange transfers of people to more suitable properties, particularly older people who want to move from bigger to smaller houses. The size of the housing stock will be depleted.
Does the Secretary of State intend to keep in being the Welsh housing consultative committee? I hope he does. The committee consists of officials from his Department, local authority officials and local authority members. They are people who have an expertise in housing in Wales and who can give valuable advice to the Ministers concerned.
Several hon. Members referred to the shortage of fuel supplies in various parts of Wales. This is not a party political point. The Leader of the House earlier today said that fuel supplies were being shared out fairly throughout the country. I have had brought to my notice two cases which do not confirm that. The Rhondda Metal Company in my constituency telephoned to tell me of the difficulties it had experienced. A bakery in Merthyr, the Pant bakery, was told by its normal fuel distributors that they could not supply it any longer, and neither can other distributors supply it.
The hon. Member for Anglesey said that there was strong evidence that small firms are experiencing difficulty in getting adequate fuel supplies. If that is true, I suggest to the Secretary of State that it would be worth considering setting up a small unit or point of contact in the Welsh Office so that people can get advice, otherwise many small firms—and other firms for that matter—will find themselves in serious difficulties in the near future.
I was glad to hear the Secretary of State welcome the marginal land survey. He said that it was a bit late, but everyone makes that sort of remark, depending on which side of the House he sits. I urge the right hon. Gentleman at least to agree that the survey shall continue and to do everything he possibly can to speed it up. I realise that there are difficulties, but we should give a push to that survey.
Do the Government intend to continue next year the extra 50p on the hill sheep subsidy, or will it not be uprated? The increase should be more than 50 per cent. next year. If the Minister cannot reply to that, I shall understand. Perhaps he will drop me a line.
I congratulate the Secretary of State and his two colleagues, and I wish them well in their new office. I believe that they bring to that office good intentions. I suspect sometimes that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but I do not believe that they are men of ill will. However, some of the policies that they are advancing are not the policies that I would commend. All that I can pray, for the well-being of the people of Wales, is that the Tories' actions will not too closely match the extravagant language they have used in the past few weeks.

9.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Michael Roberts): It has been good to revive the tradition of a Welsh day debate, albeit a very short one, after a lapse of several years. Some will question whether having a debate that clashed with the Wales v. England match at Wembley was appropriate timing, particularly in view of the score, which was 0–0—a little disappointing.
As usual, the debate has been of a very high standard. We have had four maiden speeches, all of them well-informed and balanced contributions. Each new Member has paid tribute to the work and character of a distinguished predecessor who had made a notable mark in the life of the House.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Dr. Thomas) referred to a large number of distinguished Members who have served in that constituency, going back to the renowned Daniel Hopkin, who had such a wonderful reputation in the constituency.
I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Hooson) paid tribute to my constituent Caerwyn Roderick, who was a man of principle and a kind and compassionate man.
I congratulate the hon. Members for Carmarthen and Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and my hon. Friends the Members for Brecon and Radnor and for Angelsey (Mr. Best) on their contributons. I wish also to express the view, which I am sure is universally held, that we eagerly await their future contributions to debates.
My hon. Friends the Members for Brecon and Radnor and Anglesey both

referred to the problems of Welsh agriculture. I give them the assurance that we shall seek to ensure that there is no discrimination against the Welsh farmer when we discuss matters concerning the CAP in Brussels.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor also raised the question of the possibility of a Select Committee on Welsh affairs. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, we want to improve the scrutiny that Parliament gives to Welsh affairs. We shall therefore give Parliament an opportunity to consider proposals for a Welsh Select Committee.
The hon. Member for Ogmore raised the question of the new hospital at Bridgend and asked for a specific guarantee. He asked that construction should start earlier than next year. The position is clear. It will start not this year but at the end of next year. I can give the guarantee that it will go ahead.
The advent of my hon. Friends the Members for Anglesey, Montgomery (Mr. Williams) and Brecon and Radnor, covering geographically four of the 13 pre-1973 counties, is unquestionably a watershed in Welsh political life. In a recent speech the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) spoke of the Lab-cur Party's having been conned by the media into believing that Plaid Cymru, and not the Conservatives, was the main enemy of Labour in the Principality. Plaid Cymru's 29 forfeited deposits and its fall in the total vote from 10·8 per cent. to 8·1 per cent. should have persuaded everyone that Plaid Cymru and the idea of separatism attracts only a tiny minority in Wales. That is media myth No. 1 totally destroyed.
I am far too long experienced in Welsh politics to ignore the strength of the Labour Party in Wales or to underestimate the loyalty of its supporters. Even in defeat, it still won 21 of the 36 Welsh seats. The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavan (Mr. Morris) described himself as the best shop steward that the Conservative Party had, and I thank him for that. There may be justification for the claim. But we do not think of him in those terms. We think of him in far more exalted terms. We regard him as the best recruiting sergeant that we have ever had. But at least we can say that he can spot an elephant when it


sits on his doorstep, and he is very busy rallying his troops from any Left-wing deviation.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman told Labour's recent Welsh post mortem at Llandudno that more radical policies would turn this year's election defeat for Labour into next time's thrashing for Labour. He is urging the Labour Party to win back the middle ground which we have captured, so we must not be in any way complacent. I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there will be strong opposition to his proposal to win back the middle ground and that opposition will not only come from his own side of the House.
The second myth which has been destroyed in this election is that the Tory Party is not a truly Welsh party and that it has no standing in the Principality. Plaid Cymru, the Liberals and, indeed, the Labour Party in the valleys have learned the folly of that piece of self-deception. With Labour holding only two seats north of Merthyr Tydfil, the political map of Wales has turned blue.
This summer we are planning a coach tour to study the scenic beauty of Wales in Tory territory all the way from Chepstow to Holyhead, and I should welcome the remnants of Plaid Cymru and the Liberals to join us, not to say some members of the official Opposition.
I have been studying the facts, as I always do, and I am sure that Plaid Cymru will be interested to learn that the swing to the Conservatives has been even greater in Welsh-speaking Wales than in the rest of the Principality. Welshmen, and Welsh Conservatives especially, invented tactical voting years before it was discovered by the psephologists. It can never be said again in Merioneth, Carmarthen and Caernarvon that a Conservative vote is a wasted vote. The Conservative party has emerged as a major political force in a two-party system in Wales.
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) referred to the rate support grant and asked the Government to look at the possibility of a separate rate support system for Wales. We shall consider the case for it, but we shall not be rushed into any hasty and ill-considered actions.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked where the axe would fall. We made it clear throughout the election campaign that there would be expenditure cuts. But obviously it is far too early for us to bring details before the House. We want to assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we must not fall into the trap of assuming that every expenditure cut is necessarily a disaster. Expenditure cuts must be balanced against the incentives and tax cuts that will be part of the package. We believe that the package that we shall present will have a greater impact on the prosperity of Wales and a greater impact on unemployment in Wales than the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is our recruiting sergeant, achieved in his five years as Secretary of State.
In his opening speech my right hon. Friend said that I would try to say something about education and roads. I will try to do that because hon. Members have raised these issues. On education, the Government attach the highest priority to educational standards. We are committed to do anything we can to raise them. There is ample evidence of the need for increasing and improving education standards in Wales. Publications issued by the Welsh Office over the past year leave us in no doubt that the picture is very disturbing. I acknowledge and pay tribute to the initiative taken by the former Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State in their investigations into the problems facing Welsh education.
My criticism of the Labour Party in its approach to education in Wales is that it has been too prone to accept the achievement of a comprehensive scheme and then not to follow it up to see that the scheme has proved satisfactory. There is no question that we are committed to comprehensive education in Wales. We must all work as hard as possible to improve standards. We, as a Government, intend to pursue the achievement of standards with vigour. It is intolerable that over one-quarter of all young people leaving schools in Wales should have no graded results at GCE or CSE. This figure is all the more disturbing when compared with the corresponding English figure of under 15 per cent. I see clearly our commitment to raising educational standards and our equally firm determination to extend the rights


and responsibilities of parents, including their right to express views, and to have them listened to, on which schools their children should attend.
We want to see schools publish more detailed prospectuses including details of their pupils' examination performance, properly interpreted. I readily acknowledge the need for fair interpretation of this sort of information. Such prospectuses can do nothing but good.
Being a parent is the greatest responsibility any, of us can undertake. We must give parents the chance to exercise their influence and their choice in the interests of their children. We shall be happy to listen to views from all quarters. If we can involve the parents of our children in the choices and the influences that operate in our schools, I am confident that those schools will give a better service and will be better places for education. There is need for that in Wales.
In aspects of education, as in the whole range of subjects before us today, I find myself in disagreement with many of the views expressed on the Opposition Benches. The hon. Member for Rhondda made clear that he held very different views from those of us who sit on the Government side. He was generous enough to say that he thought—

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

BUSINESS OF SUPPLY

Ordered,
That during the present Session the reference in Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply) to the 5th of August shall be to the 5th of August 1980.—[Mr. Cope.]

VICTORIA HOSPITAL, ROMFORD

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Cope.]

10 p.m.

Mr. Michael Neubert: My first pleasure is to congratulate the Minister for Health on his appointment, to wish him well in his years of office and to thank him for coming to the House tonight to answer this short debate.
My purpose in initiating the debate is to highlight the threat to the Victoria

hospital in my constituency and to bring it to the new Minister's attention at the earliest opportunity. This is a propitious time to raise the question of the closure of a small hospital, because we meet on the morrow of the decision to save the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson hospital, a small specialist hospital providing treatment for women by women. Many people concerned for the future of the National Health Service will have been encouraged by that decision. Great hopes will have been pinned on the Prime Minister's declaration in her speech in the debate on the Address on Tuesday of last week, when she said:
… I have great sympathy with the cause of small local hospitals and hospitals with a special role, such as the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson hospital. There is no such thing as a free service in the Health Service. It must be made more responsive to he needs of patients."—[Official Report, 15 May 1979; Vol. 967, c. 81.]
That is very much the theme that I shall take in making my case this evening.
The proposal to close the Victoria hospital is still subject to consultation. Submissions on that proposal have been invited to a deadline of 30 May. We are now told that the report of the Royal Commission on the Health Service will be available in July. It might be thought appropriate to await those findings before any irreversible decision is taken, and in the likely run of events that is how it will be.
If the decision to close the Victoria hospital is confirmed by the area health authority and if that decision is supported by the North-East Thames regional health authority, and if there is continued opposition from the community health council—and of that we can be quite certain—the case will eventually go to the Secretary of State for a ruling. I understand that the Minister, in his quasi-judicial capacity, will not therefore wish to prejudice his eventual consideration of the case this far in advance by commenting too specifically tonight. However, I hope that he will indicate in general terms what his policy is likely to be towards the retention of small hospitals.
For the same reason, my argument will be of a broader character of observation, but there are one or two special features relating to this hospital which I want to bring out.
The Victoria hospital was opened on 24 May 1888 by one of my predecessors to commemorate the jubilee of Queen Victoria. It was built on a site donated by a local benefactor who, at his own expense, enlarged it five years later. There were further extensions of the hospital in 1912 to commemorate the death of King Edward VII and in 1924. In passing, I should mention that a Diamond Jubilee commemoration fund raised the then princely sum of £845. Public donation is very much the message of this case. Then in 1939 Lady Neave laid the foundation stone of a three-storey building on another part of the site.
This hospital, therefore, has now served the community of Romford and round about for very nearly 100 years. But the area health authority, the Barking and Havering area health authority, has had increasing doubts about its viability in the recent past, and it has now come forward with firm proposals for the closure of the hospital and its conversion to other uses, which the authority indicates as being for a psycho-geriatric day unit, a luncheon centre for the elderly and office accommodation for the community health service staff.
With all the charity in the world, that can be seen for what it is a dog's break-fast—and inevitably there has been a public outcry. A petition was raised to which 40,000 signatures have been appended. It was presented to me at a meeting held at the town hall, an overflow meeting from which more than 100 people were turned away, and opposition to the proposal has been widespread—from parliamentarians on both sides of the House, the political parties locally, trade unions, townswomen's guilds, trades councils, and the London borough of Havering, whose members voted without a single dissentient against the proposal to close the hospital. There has been countless correspondence, and, above all, the two community health councils have opposed it.
This hospital is in the Barking district but, naturally, the people of Havering, represented by their CHC, have a direct interest in the hospital, which stands in Havering, in Romford.
So democracy has been in action, and democracy is not the least important aspect of the case which I am making,

because this decision was taken by a vote of only seven to five members of the area health authority, and against those seven who voted in favour of closure there are the 40,000 signatories to the petition and the express wishes of many thousands of other people in the locality.
One needs to look at the nature of the area health authority. Its members are appointed, not elected. They are qualified—some eminently qualified—but they are not directly answerable. Their meetings are held in public, but they are little advertised and therefore little known, and they are held in an inconvenient location.
However distinguished the members of the AHA may be, and however clear-sighted they may be in their proposals for the Health Service in our community, they should be reminded that ultimately they stand to serve the people of Barking and Havering. Although their announced purpose is to achieve the best possible service within the available resources, their proposals are not what the public want.
The public of Romford and round about rightly want what they call their hospital. As I have explained, it was provided by their money or their fathers' and grandfathers' money, and, as they are the people who paid for it and are continuing to pay for it as taxpayers, their views should be heeded.
However, faced with increasing pressures on its budget, the area health authority, which has a very difficult task—no one denies that—has appeared to acquiesce in an administrator's answer, namely, contraction, centralisation and concentration—a series of ugly words for an unpopular process.
In this case the authority, at a time when public expenditure was flowing freely as from an unstaunched wound, committed itself to an over-ambitious redevelopment of Oldchurch hospital. Now, with tightened budgets and with the reallocation of resources within the region, its only plan is to contract, close, and concentrate on Oldchurch to justify and consolidate the already committed development on that site. For this, the authority is prepared to throw away the priceless asset of a small human-scale hospital which earns nothing but praise


and which has the homely, friendly atmosphere so reassuring to those who are ill and those who visit them.
There is the problem of the logic of planning ahead for the Health Service, and in its strategic plan the regional health authority acknowledges that the preferred pattern of hospital provision in each district is almost certain to conflict with varying local needs and circumstances, and it is this that we see in Romford in relation to the Victoria hospital.
A new approach is needed to be more responsive to the needs of patients. Small hospitals are local, more convenient and more acceptable than massive health factories. Their staffs are intensely loyal and have a greater sense of identity with the hospitals that they serve and the service that they give. In passing, it is worth mentioning that to concentrate the resources of the Health Service is to open up an increased vulnerability to industrial disruption. It is significant that during the dark days of last winter the staff of the Victoria hospital stayed at their posts throughout.
Instead of recognising the value of the hospital and the degree of appreciation of it by the public, the area health authority has allowed the hospital to decline—whether deliberately, inadvertently, or because it felt that it had no choice is neither here nor there. When the hospital was taken over by the Health Service in 1948 it had 101 beds. Now it is down to only 32. Inevitably it means that the hospital is not giving the same cost-effective value that it could.
It is an ironic comment in the debate on public ownership that a hospital that was provided with public money by private appeal, and was taken over by the National Health Service, should ultimately be faced with abandonment by that self-same so-called publicly owned National Health Service.
The hospital stands on a substantial site. The land is very valuable in such a desirable residential area, but is under-used. What a crying waste it has been. In other circumstances, all the arguments would be for the expansion of the hospital, yet it has been deliberately restricted and gradually contracted.
The area health authority has been entrusted with a precious asset. It is a

trustee both for the past and for the future. I believe that it should be fighting for the survival of the hospital, not reluctantly accepting a lowering of standards. These proposals, far from being an ideal solution, are expedients, and highly unsatisfactory expedients at that. In its consultation paper no solution has yet been found by the health authority to the problem of the large number of X-rays that are carried out at the hospital each year, many of them on GP referral. No solution has been found, either, to the problem of the out-patient services which are provided at the hospital.
At a time when hospital waiting lists throughout the country are at their highest since the Health Service was founded about 30 years ago, waiting lists in this health district are substantially worse than the national average. There are, for example, 1,152 ear, nose and throat cases awaiting admission. Many of these will be children, and cases have come to my attention in the course of my constituency work in which the delays in waiting for the necessary operations have risked permanent damage to health or retarded education.
In some of these cases, parents have been able to find other means of seeing that their children have received the attention that they have needed, but it is most unsatisfactory for the people of Havering to have to face these unpleasant facts. They have been greatly alarmed, not to say angered, by the closure of the children's ward at the Victoria hospital, with the transfer of its cases to another hospital in the district.
The decision to close the hospital when the service is under strain and standards are slipping is dismal. There is still time for a change of heart and for renewed determination to serve the public in the way that it wishes to be served. It does not have to be a question of cash alone. Cash is, of course, at the heart of this dilemma, as is inevitable. There may be arguments for a fairer reallocation of resources than has yet been proposed, since the Barking and Havering area is undoubtedly underfunded compared with other parts of the region, but not with the county of Essex, next door.
Let us examine other ways to make savings. Few that I meet either outside or inside the National Health Service


doubt that there are ways to make savings. I hope that the new Administration will take the course of exploring the opportunities to make savings in this direction. If our resources are limited, it is vital that they should be applied for the greatest possible benefit.
One illustration that is inevitable is administrative costs, which amount to about £1½ million per year. Are these costs unavoidable? Is there no scope for saving there? Could we not involve voluntary support? Is that such an outrageous suggestion? Is it too imaginative an idea? The hospital was provided by private generosity and public appeal. Support for it has remained strong throughout the years. Many look upon it lovingly and are prepared to put their moneys where their mouths are. The support for it could be tapped to bridge the budget gap.
As an example of what has been achieved, £150,000 has been raised locally for the foundation of a hospice. The idea is not impossible, and I appeal to those in the Health Service and responsible for taking decisions on the future of the Service not to rule out the possibility of harnessing concrete public support and potential financial support. Of course, that does not fit in with the contents of manuals of hospital administration that they have been taught. However, it may be the one way out of our dilemma. It is remarkable that of the 22 new body scanners in the United Kingdom no fewer than half have been provided by philanthropists or by public appeal even though they cost £300,000 each.
It is understood that there is the implication of continuing revenue costs after capital purchase, but that indicates that the public will respond in a popular cause and that there are other ways of solving our problems than always asking for more money from the State. Given the will, the Victoria hospital can and must be saved. It is a community asset which should be exploited and expanded rather than run down. I hope that the debate will contribute towards its survival. If it does, it will be a good night's work.

10.17 p.m.

The Minister for Health (Dr. Gerard Vaughan): I thank my hon. Friend the

Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) for his good wishes. I have noted carefully what he has said and I congratulate him on the cautious and reasoned way in which he has presented his case for keeping open the Victoria hospital.
This is the first Adjournment debate on health in this Parliament and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising such an important local matter—the question of the future of the Victoria hospital, Romford.
My hon. Friend knows that he is not alone in his anxiety over the closure of a small hopsital. A number of hon. Members are concerned because in many areas there are small hospitals similar to the one under discussion whose future is threatened.
Not everybody seems to be clear over the procedure for closing hospitals. First, responsibility for the closure or for changing the role of health premises rests with the area health authority. If it wishes to close a hospital, it has to follow the procedure set out in a guidance note issued by my Department in 1975.
First the authority is required to prepare a consultative document covering such matters as the reasons for the proposal; an assessment of the other possible uses of the facilities or the disposal of the site; implications for the staff; and the relationship between the closure or change of use and other development in the area. There are also the questions of transport facilities for those patients who might be affected by the proposals.
When that has been done, the area health authority invites comments on the proposal from a wide range of local interests, including the community health council affected. Hon. Members whose constituents are affected should also be informed of the proposals, and I understand that Barking and Havering have sent my hon. Friend a copy of the document in relation to the Victoria hospital. Where the community health council objects to the proposal, it is expected to produce a constructive counter-proposal for consideration by the area health authority.
If agreement cannot be reached the matter is referred to the regional health authority, and if necessary to the Secretary of State for a final decision.
In the case of the Victoria hospital, the Barking and Havering health authority has issued a formal consultation document on its proposals and is asking for comments by 30 May. The health authority proposal is still subject to this local consultation, so that nothing that I say tonight should be taken as prejudging the issue—we must wait to hear its proposal after these consultations have been completed.
I would like, however, to say something about our general approach to the future of small hospitals, such as this one. Many of these hospitals have played an invaluable role in health services for very many years by providing specialist services supplementary to those provided in district general hospitals, by providing services locally for patients whose medical condition does not require the full services of a district general hospital, or by caring for those who no longer require full specialist facilities but are not well enough to go home.
The policy of recent Governments has been to concentrate acute facilities in large district general hospitals, where possible on a single site, and to limit the role of the small hospital in acute medicine while at the same time expanding its role in the care of the longer-stay patient, particularly the elderly. We need to think carefully about the danger of hospital services becoming too remote from the local communities that they serve, especially in rural areas where patients and their friends and relatives may have to travel many miles to the district general hospital—and at considerable cost. When we dealt with the reorganisation of the National Health Service in Committee, there was a good deal of discussion about the hidden costs of ambulance services and of relatives having to travel and stay overnight. That disadvantage has to be weighed very carefully against the medical advantages of concentrating services in one place.
The overall advantage will not be the same everywhere, and I see a need for considerable flexibility of approach to deal with differing local circumstances. So I would say to hon. Members that we see a continuing place for the small local hospital, where there is a useful and satisfactory role for it in the total pattern

of hospital provision in a district, whether it be rural or urban. We see this as an important part of restoring a local approach to the care of patients.
So we approach the question of small hospitals with considerable sympathy, and I intend to have an urgent, close look at present policy in this field. This will take a little time, since one cannot look at small hospitals in isolation, and I shall also want to take views from a range of National Health Service and professional interests. But I ought to make it clear at this stage that I am not announcing a general intention to preserve all small hospitals or to retain their functions unchanged. Some have reached the end of their useful lives, both structurally and functionally. It may no longer be possible to provide a satisfactory standard of care with the buildings and facilities available. Some are very difficult to staff now. They may be hopelessly uneconomic in their demands on finance and staff. The problem of effective use of limited resources is always with us. In some cases new facilities have been provided which were specifically planned to replace existing hospitals, and these cannot be used unless staff and money are freed by closures. Each case must be looked at in its own particular circumstances.
In this regard, I am particularly pleased that the future of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson hospital has been safeguarded by a solution that illustrates the points that I have made. A new and very exciting role has been found for the EGA which meets a genuine need not currently being met by the health services in that part of London—that of a women's hospital dealing with women's disorders. The community, too, has a significant part to play, in that the many individuals and voluntary organisations who have expressed support for the EGA can now contribute to the establishment of the hospital in its new role.
For the reasons that I have already explained, I would not wish to comment—I am unable to on the Barking and Havering area health authority's proposal concerning the Victoria hospital.
I do not know what will be the area health authority's conclusion when it comes to consider the Victoria hospital proposal again, or, if the matter is referred to the North-East Thames regional health


authority, what view that authority will take. I can, however, assure my hon. Friend that if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is asked to make the final decision on this matter, the greatest

care will be given to all the points made by my hon. Friend tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.